Re: [spp] [spp 03539] Re: [PATCH 0/6] Replace deprecated APIs

[Yasufumi Ogawa <usufumu@gmail.com>]

> Hello Yasufumi-san,
>
> Thanks so much for your comments.
>
> About your first point, I think the follwing naming may be fit with DPDK
> and SPP naming conventions, what do you think?
>
> attach -> spp_eth_dev_attach
> detach -> spp_eth_dev_detach
I think you should not use prefix `spp` without if it defines a 
behaviour of SPP itself. This function is more essential to attach device.

For `spp_eth_dev_attach`, You might think similar name from original 
`rte_eth_dev_attach`, but I think we do not keep the name of deprecated 
APIs. More simply, how about `dev_attach_by_devargs` instead of?

For `spp_eth_dev_detach`, I think `dev_detach_by_port_id` is more 
prefer. Other than the name of the function, I am curious why it takes 
second argument `name` because it is not used in the function.

By the way, I am not clear what is the difference between your functions 
and `rte_eth_dev_attach` defined in 
`dpdk/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c` exactly. Could you explain about 
the difference shortly for helping my understanding?

Thanks
> About your second point, I appologize about my mistake.
>
> Once I get ack for above new naming of two interfaces from you,
> I will revise my patch set including cover-letter and will send
> those to mailing list.
>
> Thanks for your co-opearation!
>
> BR,
> Hideyuki Yamashita
> NTT TechnoCorss
>
>> On 2018/11/07 14:07, x-fn-spp@sl.ntt-tx.co.jp wrote:
>>> From: Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>
>>>
>>> >From DPDK-18.08, the follwing APIs become deprecated and
>>> will be deleted in DPDK18.08.
>>> - rte_eth_dev_attach()
>>> - rte_eth_dev_detach()
>>>
>>> For rte_eth_dev_attach(), use of rte_eal_hotplug_add() is recommended.
>>> For rte_eth_dev_detach(), use of rte_eal_hotplug_remove() is recommended.
>>>
>>> To follow the above changes, this patch set provides replacement of
>>> those APIs.
>> Hideyuki,
>>
>> Thank you for suggesting to update to v18.08!
>>
>> Could you re-consider the name of function you added by referring conventions of DPDK and SPP? It has almost no means if just `attach` or `detach`. It is preferable to be self explanatory for how your function works.
>>
>> Commit messages are also required to be revised. Update for the change of function name and modify invalid descriptions for documentation guidelines.
>>
>> Thanks
>>> Signed-off-by: Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>
>>> Signed-off-by: Naoki Takada <takada.naoki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>>>
>>> Hideyuki Yamashita (6):
>>>     shared: addition of attach()
>>>     spp_nfv: replacement of rte_eth_dev_attach()
>>>     spp_vf:replacement of rte_eth_dev_attach()
>>>     shared: addition of detach()
>>>     spp_nfv: replacement of rte_eth_dev_detach()
>>>     spp_vm: replacement of rte_eth_dev_detach().
>>>
>>>    src/nfv/nfv.c       | 12 ++++-----
>>>    src/shared/common.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    src/shared/common.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    src/vf/spp_vf.c     |  4 +--
>>>    src/vm/main.c       |  2 +-
>>>    5 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>