Re: [PATCH] doc: announce driver name changes

[Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>]

Hi,
I'm all in for consistent naming and this "only" is the deprecation notice
ahead of time which is great.
Looking ahead I wanted to ask for opinions if more than just me would
consider it useful to keep aliases on the old names when the rename happens.

That way any sort of old config would continue to work.
Of course I could do that in the scope of the scripts that consume the
names and apply the driver loads.
But then that is true for everybody out there who has some kind of
config/tooling around the old names - so I thought it is worth to ask for
opinions.

Kind Regards,
Christian



Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pablo de Lara <
pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com> wrote:

> Driver names for all the supported devices in DPDK do not have
> a naming convention. Some are using a prefix, some are not
> and some have long names. Driver names are used when creating
> virtual devices, so it is useful to have consistency in the names.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index f502f86..37d65c8 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -41,3 +41,8 @@ Deprecation Notices
>  * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are deprecated
> and
>    will be removed in 16.11.
>    It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions.
> +
> +* Driver names are quite inconsistent among each others and they will be
> +  renamed to something more consistent (net_ prefix for net drivers and
> +  crypto_ for crypto drivers) in 16.11. Some of these driver names are
> used
> +  publicly, to create virtual devices, so a deprecation notice is
> necessary.
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>