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 DCE1CA00C5; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEAD1D5B1; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:41:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983E41D167 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:41:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588855290; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0VJF3G3aUABF5tYKbTF+yJxoRJO2/OMmGSiVAKbzvkM=; b=LiPfbpAyX42F9XrTultjlsnJ3lul63Hrv2Bxbawm4YHudcFrjbBg5LBu1Erg7vjMYmSwj4 yCTMQfBlPpHXCR88WpBoOVvC+2QhSkmRsf7rXHa0vxpzO5kV52g9NNBJdw9cIJK2dRzKWp veT6aje9sUrzHmVsSaYvfLvachOqFCw= Received: from mail-vs1-f72.google.com (mail-vs1-f72.google.com [209.85.217.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-434-wHd7qeKdM0KjawnpnPXPkA-1; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:41:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wHd7qeKdM0KjawnpnPXPkA-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f72.google.com with SMTP id m9so1204761vso.15 for ; Thu, 07 May 2020 05:41:28 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0VJF3G3aUABF5tYKbTF+yJxoRJO2/OMmGSiVAKbzvkM=; b=HzUMYRyRjC7QtYDnk/66m5sfTbo9FU+jLcwkhOshuWFkRqf6XkEwCTaXkUYE/hiYtN 64C9qXg9Ebb3hsV9k/4M3gRfe0xMeqoc+3RPBWmE0VNYh5sou4jHQ29WE1YwScNCGZl2 NqLEEmtVBc2YYb6E3wvqj5RWfZkNcREsfsdEF0LJK9T67bLk3WynYBrn9Kp7htXS7l6h vZ/3PtTmcgr6JrrQX2D1AKiiLYeasUyxlV9q0UiZjswbMV3kgcYESk6qgLwhEZ0Kf451 E7wVdG3jLnrOelqJCoepPhh30kJnPylehYApSFF7jxmKk8gHngI1bmfdRmS8ICTohJJN 2RUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZcUbc8uN1FOPa1W9rJuNgJjq+Ee0uc+mYAbj+d800rlvkGm1w/ OB9tFfwja6cvUW5egvCdCQjNu7v8uLQntS5yfsPUfT1o/kNTdaFqQ609GClB+SVu6dtMo9lRAC2 b+nfLTeFACtoWbKmgw9I= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9a41:: with SMTP id c62mr11624183vke.80.1588855287726; Thu, 07 May 2020 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJGeiK2qED7xvnUvI9t7tEjHsM52/HKCgHU35AUXF1C8XgmRmZDYcUPJ8Tho2zTULMe4FPxGWksYjbjGoZ8DEY= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9a41:: with SMTP id c62mr11624165vke.80.1588855287422; Thu, 07 May 2020 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200506124314.14009-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20200506124314.14009-2-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20200506172123.w37j737azn7ijdxa@u256.net> In-Reply-To: <20200506172123.w37j737azn7ijdxa@u256.net> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 14:41:16 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan_Rivet?= Cc: dev X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] bus/pci: cleanup private symbols 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 Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:21 PM Ga=C3=ABtan Rivet wrote: > > On 06/05/20 14:43 +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > Internal symbols do not need the rte_ prefix. > > Some symbols do not need to be exposed in the private header and have > > been made static. > > > > Fixes: c752998b5e2e ("pci: introduce library and driver") > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand > > For this patch, I would like to understand why we are having this > policy. Symbols that are emitted for later linking will be present in > archives generated by the framework. Am I wrong to think they can > conflict with user app symbols? > > If that is correct, we should use pci_* prefix for static symbols, > rte_* for everything else, even "internal" symbols -- in the sense > that they are meant to be opaque to the user, but will still be linked > in static build. > > If I'm wrong in thinking this, then ok with this policy and let's go > forward to align naming in PCI bus. I see your point. This is a pain to read code which mixes internal and public functions with the rte_ prefix. I have no answer atm, I am ok with dropping this patch. --=20 David Marchand