Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_

[Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>]

I'd like people opinion of Thomas proposal to have all new libraries use 
a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_*. Although I agree that dpdk_ would 
probably make sense, I don't like the ascetics of inconsistent prefixes 
on dpdk libraries. Any comments?




2016-04-05 09:48, Trahe, Fiona:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2016-04-05 08:53, Fiona Trahe:
> > > The cryptodev API was introduced in the DPDK 2.2 release.
> > > Since then it has
> > >  - been reviewed and iterated for the DPDK 16.04 release
> > >  - had extensive use by the l2fwd-crypto app,
> > > 			the ipsec-secgw example app,
> > > 			the test app.
> > > We believe it is now stable and the EXPERIMENTAL label should be removed.
> >
> > Are you sure sure? :)
> > It means you will try hard to not change the API anymore or you'll need a
> > deprecation notice strongly agreed (outside of your team).
>
> We're sure sure :)

I think we could change the namespace before making this API stable.
What about using a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_ ?
(and some macros have CRYPTODEV or CDEV prefixes)