Open Stack

On 06/13/2016 01:22 AM, Andreas Scheuring wrote:
> While reviewing [1] I got hung up on the terms "device" and "interface".
> It seems like in sr-iov agent they are used in a different manner than
> in the linuxbridge agent.
>
> For Example the lb agent uses a config option
> "physical_interface_mappings" (mapping between uplink interface for
> bridge and physnet). A similar option in the sr-iov agent is named
> "physical_device_mappings" (mapping between PF and physnet -> missing in
> config reference for some reason [2]). In the l2 agent context, a
> variable named device typically references to a port specific device
> (e.g. the tap device) and not to a shared host device (like eth0).
>
> As now patchset [1] introduces a new agent extension for lb & ovs agent
> including a new config option "shared_physcial_device_mappings", I
> really got a bit confused during the review as now in lb context
> "device" is something different (namely a physical interface).
>
> Would it make sense rename all the sr-iov options from *device* to
> *interface* to stay consistent and to have a clear separation between
> port specific and shared host devices?
>
> My proposal is to name
> - shared host device: interface
> - port specific devices: device

I kind of think in the reverse, actually... For host physical devices, I 
refer to them as devices. For Neutron port-specific stuff, I think of 
them as interfaces (due to the relationship to "vnic" in my head...

Best,
-jay