From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Declan Doherty Subject: Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:29:23 +0100 Message-ID: <5703BDB3.3010501@intel.com> References: <1828032.Xk8haRDBUM@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CFA2BFE for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:32:52 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1828032.Xk8haRDBUM@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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)