Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Move PMDs out of lib directory

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 05:45:20PM +0200, Marc Sune wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/05/15 17:35, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >The "lib" directory is getting very crowded, with both general libs and
> >poll mode drivers in it. This patch set proposes to move the PMDs out of the
> >lib folder and to put them in a separate "pmds" folder. This should help
> >with code browse-ability as the number of libs, and pmds increases.
> >
> >Comments or objections?
> >
> >Bruce Richardson (2):
> >   pmds: Use relative rather than absolute paths
> >   pmds: move pmds from lib to separate pmd dir
> >
> >  create mode 100644 pmds/librte_pmd_xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c
> >  create mode 100644 pmds/librte_pmd_xenvirt/rte_xen_lib.c
> >  create mode 100644 pmds/librte_pmd_xenvirt/rte_xen_lib.h
> >  create mode 100644 pmds/librte_pmd_xenvirt/virtio_logs.h
> >  create mode 100644 pmds/librte_pmd_xenvirt/virtqueue.h
> >
> 
> But at the end they are also libraries. What about something like:
> 
> * libs/core <= fundamental libraries (eal, mbuf rings...)
> * libs/pmds <= all pmds
> 
> And other feature-group oriented, higher level lib, directories (not sure
> right now how to better classify them right now):
> * libs/processing <= packet processing
> * libs/utils
> ...
> 
Yes, they are all just libs, so we could make "pmds" be a sub-dir of the lib
folder. I prefer the shorter path myself, but if others want a multi-level
hierarchy it's no big deal.

For the other libs, I'm not sure we need to split them up, and I also think
that trying to divide them into categories - and what those categories should
be could - cause endless discussion. However, maybe I'm overly pessimistic... :-)

/Bruce