From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mem: use proper prefix Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:03:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181031172931.11894-1-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <20181031172931.11894-3-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <68244b83-2810-043e-f9b5-0b8984e99ab9@intel.com> <1764123.29vNcfR2yM@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , Alejandro Lucero Return-path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE021B1EC for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:03:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1764123.29vNcfR2yM@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 01-Nov-18 2:50 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 01/11/2018 11:08, Burakov, Anatoly: >> On 31-Oct-18 5:29 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: >>> Current name rte_eal_check_dma_mask does not follow the naming >>> used in the rest of the file. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero >>> --- >> >> I don't think this belongs in the _mem_ namespace. It is usually used >> for things to do with memory, while the DMA mask IMO sits firmly in the >> domain of EAL, specifically bus subsystem. > > It is a memory allocation check, isn't it? > > I think rte_mem_ prefix is more meaningful. > Anyway, we should avoid rte_eal which is too vague. > For device management, we use rte_bus, rte_dev, etc. > No strong feelings here, you can keep the mem namespace. Dem alphabets tho... -- Thanks, Anatoly