From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1AE532C for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:25:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rsa59-2-82-233-193-189.fbx.proxad.net ([82.233.193.189] helo=droids-corp.org) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gFwWM-0002QX-4v; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:27:03 +0200 Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:25:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:25:42 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: "Wiles, Keith" Cc: dpdk-dev Message-ID: <20181026072542.i7hep5s4rnyokgol@platinum> References: <20181024081833.21432-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20181024081833.21432-3-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <4C4FCEA1-EA26-4053-8235-2ACADE2F107D@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C4FCEA1-EA26-4053-8235-2ACADE2F107D@intel.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 02/14] net: add rte prefix to arp defines X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 07:25:45 -0000 Hi, On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 02:53:25PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: > > > > On Oct 24, 2018, at 1:18 AM, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > Add 'RTE_' prefix to defines: > > - rename ARP_HRD_ETHER as RTE_ARP_HRD_ETHER. > > - rename ARP_OP_REQUEST as RTE_ARP_OP_REQUEST. > > - rename ARP_OP_REPLY as RTE_ARP_OP_REPLY. > > - rename ARP_OP_REVREQUEST as RTE_ARP_OP_REVREQUEST. > > - rename ARP_OP_REVREPLY as RTE_ARP_OP_REVREPLY. > > - rename ARP_OP_INVREQUEST as RTE_ARP_OP_INVREQUEST. > > - rename ARP_OP_INVREPLY as RTE_ARP_OP_INVREPLY. > > > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz > > Were these conflicting with external headers ? > > If not it maybe reasonable to keep the old defines for a release or two and then deprecate the old ones by defining the old defines in terms of the new defines. This way we can support the old ones for a while then state they will be deprecated later. > > Trying to make it easier for developers to update code. What do you think Providing a compat layer would be helpful for sure. But I don't think it is possible for everything. Please see my answer to Bruce: https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-October/117255.html Olivier