From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7EEA04B7; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:00:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AD91DB44; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:00:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (relay9-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.199]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDB11D14E for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:59:57 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 86.254.165.59 Received: from u256.net (lfbn-poi-1-843-59.w86-254.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.254.165.59]) (Authenticated sender: grive@u256.net) by relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F846FF803; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:59:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:59:49 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan?= Rivet To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20201014075949.xsddguwur4tibu3h@u256.net> References: <20201013165658.638760-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <8933daaf-b285-3f91-d087-c92d576626a4@oktetlabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <8933daaf-b285-3f91-d087-c92d576626a4@oktetlabs.ru> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: unify prefix for static function and variables 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 14/10/20 09:25 +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > On 10/13/20 7:56 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > Prefix static function and variables with 'eth_dev'. > > > > For some 'rte_' prefix dropped, and for others 'eth_dev' added. > > This is useful to differentiate public and static function/variables. > > > > The cleanup is good to for having consistent naming to help new > > additions naming. > > > > No functional change, only naming. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > > --- > > I think this renaming is good idea but not sure if it worth the noise > > it creates in the git history, since the change is mostly cosmetic. > > I like the idea and say yes. Noise on git history is not > the main problem here. Fixes backporting will be a problem. > Anyway we should do it one day and I see no single reason > why not now. > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko Same for me: I think this is a real improvement that trumps issues with git noise and backporting problems. As it should happen at some point anyway, maybe it would be better to try and have it in 20.11 release? That way future bug fixes will at least be based on this naming and should be easier to backport. Acked-by: Gaetan Rivet -- Gaëtan