Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

Thank you everyone for the feedbacks.

2016-04-05 15:56, Thomas Monjalon:
> The goal of this email is to get some feedback on how important it is
> to fix the DPDK namespace.

Everybody agree every symbols must be prefixed. Checking and fixing the
namespace consistency will be in the roadmap.

It seems most of you agree renaming would be a nice improvement but not
so important.
The main drawback is the induced backporting pain, even if we have
some scripts to convert the patches to the old namespace.
Note: the backports can be in DPDK itself or in the applications.

> If there is enough agreement that we should do something, I suggest to
> introduce the "dpdk_" prefix slowly and live with both "rte_" and "dpdk_"
> during some time.
> We could start using the new prefix for the new APIs (example: crypto)
> or when there is a significant API break (example: mempool).

The slow change has been clearly rejected in favor of a complete change
in one patch.
The timing was also discussed as it could impact the pending patches.
So it would be done at the end or the beginning of a release.
Marc suggests to do it for 16.04 as the numbering scheme has changed.

There is no strong conclusion at this point because we need to decide
wether the renaming deserves to be done or never.
I suggest to take the inputs from the technical board.

Do not hesitate to comment. Thanks