[dpdk-dev] RTE prefix on more libs

[dpdk-dev] RTE prefix on more libs

[Morten Brørup]

Hi Olivier and Ferruh,

 

I haven’t followed the discussions about adding the RTE prefix in details. Was there a conclusion about adding the RTE prefix in public identifiers of other (core) libraries, e.g. the IP Fragmentation and GRO/GSO libraries?

 

Or was it concluded that only the Network Headers library (librte_net) should be updated, arguing that conflicts with standard O/S library headers were mainly here, and the ripple effect of more widespread changes would be too costly for consumers of DPDK?

 

 

Med venlig hilsen / kind regards

 

Morten Brørup

CTO

 

 

SmartShare Systems A/S

Tonsbakken 16-18

DK-2740 Skovlunde

Denmark

 

Office      +45 70 20 00 93

Direct      +45 89 93 50 22

Mobile     +45 25 40 82 12

 

mb@smartsharesystems.com <mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com> 

www.smartsharesystems.com <https://www.smartsharesystems.com/> 

 

Re: [dpdk-dev] RTE prefix on more libs

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 6/21/2019 12:29 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
> Hi Olivier and Ferruh,
> 
>  
> 
> I haven’t followed the discussions about adding the RTE prefix in details. Was
> there a conclusion about adding the RTE prefix in public identifiers of other
> (core) libraries, e.g. the IP Fragmentation and GRO/GSO libraries?
> 
>  
> 
> Or was it concluded that only the Network Headers library (librte_net) should be
> updated, arguing that conflicts with standard O/S library headers were mainly
> here, and the ripple effect of more widespread changes would be too costly for
> consumers of DPDK?


As far as I remember we have not explicitly state to update or not update all
public headers, the discussion was mainly about the conflicts,
we can discuss to update all public headers but because of the reasons you
mentioned above, I am not for changing public headers if they don't cause any
conflict.