From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A4F293C for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:20:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id v188so49452999wme.1 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 02:20:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qe8NM7ok6npTH17hH/aE3TX/A6zVXrb4bcQbr4P4tPk=; b=JwnO+vHzfHwzhtik1H7MjcG/2xEjw3JQqMlho/KQuoNrjq/+5DJaMWPCcCmEovfxYL q5lebepGQ3z87Nsc19jC5diY0AxUPWe8i0mGNG22DJMN+BlLB2qUATiLiP+ZmiZoAG7n iE2k5uyEr8YykS9GbBd7WxJN2UN+2ycRUdMWLTfxn6d8FC1ErKPiKv4crvOoF+W38k2o g6oHw7NSo2ZU+eTMn2di1euUOTKk/TUj/bkLMVpd/G995Ea8WEicNfJoQKLQSfQcEy1A I75VCtU+u4GoU8BXURWYGd6fsOzhBz11Gm+W+0hCktdHDvB3iNby2WwWAyDZRoCIlprG 7dHA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qe8NM7ok6npTH17hH/aE3TX/A6zVXrb4bcQbr4P4tPk=; b=KFp6CQXFDmmflW05OCHcTfZn7KmZC8UCHtqskTmIsqWGhT6cshG+Cn4jeRi3u0+D49 TN+jNPcr7eT22AjRFx5pvwAwKhBLxnaF8M/IYyQmjO+RdaLGyyACbEJpaaKUEJKXXiM6 Ywkc7Z9SsSaDqTykYOK6V+VEf+IG1FZcGTEBYZr6t8NN7+Mjk8UrB+EnNeievADBm/cI XiEOhgdxFdNOOI7DDDr9Kf4SgKZgvBsgo53ANfywezg1rFi4S6MY9yAgwpPHDn37SBeP E5eN0Whjq5q7aDNirIWIaYp1wPJXaRSCWOGOLJN5LOj+jzTUe7/kXIuHvWgEMUkIqjme g/uw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI6Q0UyxdTEdsY7nRK+4wtE4xNCyyM/zk250fAdzWtLXw2LcuF4Crdo9BSQQBA/EwkV X-Received: by 10.28.150.195 with SMTP id y186mr2615057wmd.43.1460020831424; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 02:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (91.111.75.86.rev.sfr.net. [86.75.111.91]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w202sm7907631wmw.18.2016.04.07.02.20.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 02:20:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: techboard@dpdk.org Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:18:52 +0200 Message-ID: <5911950.ZPQvAWoePl@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1610488.T03Kyi0Reo@xps13> References: <1610488.T03Kyi0Reo@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:20:31 -0000 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