From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com (mail-ed1-f66.google.com [209.85.208.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C46B62 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:18:18 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id f8-v6so4647817edt.13 for ; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 09:18:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oCvQOtYcEJ/ARs/ZNzIUjL5FRVEAJIuympNTgenUtoo=; b=VtE3GrO3uR11gPCNShrMdMPK4QyJREBAiZjglIAG0tkj61llYuKFivuRrpliSPwZqa sYILXGzjTZ2omvzIS9ATZxNjCRGgLFw8XLa2iGgi1LHlPh70MV7wE/3SRWRYyMjGVTVE MuO/uFDBBKV4vVfaGQpubUFH/TMoG6Q3Om2clD1gtziBMikg63eZAi91qg8z+Kti82td 4OnD5zTg5+Y4ifvXWRP8GTLCNmDyWHIQHiIAlAMxgALe9ywQLnYQPzjDZrNmHc8hTDou /PRGyKgLDh8A0ILW0N2HE7cgVne9CTW2/JcYW8xwBV+2PdNywqUbYwvWv5K4lbFJITua sVkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oCvQOtYcEJ/ARs/ZNzIUjL5FRVEAJIuympNTgenUtoo=; b=mOMt4tMc6GUg2OO840qWfn6DQWWnboRZtSqfagkthtvwf3sg5zljLtOA+KDqt6FG2V XmeOr/56Zl7ylVzwfobjTFS1xe6ZAw1CLTJJKq4/cmKxnQDkaudYxkfbNAPlIv0Q2JpP KFiXSxKMB7q605laTv1+UX2zgpGkC5NceJ7qR7LrauVoHblFOwM4OhCcUlvhQ1E0U44R YlZ+D2EcY34cjM/bSvR2wjBqFhDlBuhaJi/wz0naEXsbf96UmM6HYRy9IgQOp8spFvKm OSitZXPJfvVpfhWj4UNxh07oOzQvIMs497xQitbuZm4gxXUoY2LIaRD9+SUozDf/62XJ NIAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJSrPHGh20A1IWN+pOsA6pDJtoGWEX1XzkpvWuLQtSuadZw/lde Ti5iRsd//UfKWf0gqqr87GZO6/lFFVmOUhKTHzCYJg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5d7UDtr7/6fCltalHipGM+TbYZeKaDbXSKe+TGbXNil7qdRxplccibG4cykqxAgSmQK11dibEOieESOFIsHb78= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5583:: with SMTP id y3-v6mr4327287ejp.79.1541089097899; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 09:18:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181031172931.11894-1-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <20181031172931.11894-3-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <68244b83-2810-043e-f9b5-0b8984e99ab9@intel.com> <1764123.29vNcfR2yM@xps> In-Reply-To: From: Alejandro Lucero Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:18:08 +0000 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/7] mem: use proper prefix 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: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:18:18 -0000 On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:03 PM Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 01-Nov-18 2:50 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 01/11/2018 11:08, Burakov, Anatoly: > >> On 31-Oct-18 5:29 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > >>> Current name rte_eal_check_dma_mask does not follow the naming > >>> used in the rest of the file. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero > >>> --- > >> > >> I don't think this belongs in the _mem_ namespace. It is usually used > >> for things to do with memory, while the DMA mask IMO sits firmly in the > >> domain of EAL, specifically bus subsystem. > > > > It is a memory allocation check, isn't it? > > > > I think rte_mem_ prefix is more meaningful. > > Anyway, we should avoid rte_eal which is too vague. > > For device management, we use rte_bus, rte_dev, etc. > > > > No strong feelings here, you can keep the mem namespace. Dem alphabets > tho... > > Sure. I'll send the next version later today. Thanks > -- > Thanks, > Anatoly >