From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE021B1EC for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:03:40 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Nov 2018 08:03:30 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,452,1534834800"; d="scan'208";a="246210267" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.72]) ([10.237.220.72]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2018 08:03:29 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon , Alejandro Lucero Cc: dev@dpdk.org 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> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:03:29 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1764123.29vNcfR2yM@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 15:03:41 -0000 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... -- Thanks, Anatoly