Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: prefer base driver naming

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2014-06-24 15:32, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> 
> > The PMD is built on top of the base driver which is provided by Intel and
> > shouldn't be modified to allow easy batch upgrade from Intel.
> > 
> > The base driver is a "shared code" between many projects. But in DPDK, the
> > "base driver" naming makes more sense.
> 
> I prefer to keep the name of "shared code", and do not use "base driver". As
> "base driver" is used to indicate the top level of Linux/Windows/FreeBSD
> driver by our Network guys who provides us the shared code. If we do this
> change, that will get us confused during following development.

You are speaking about a code that we don't know and that doesn't matter in 
DPDK project.
You say using "base driver" is confusing you but it's what it is: a base 
driver for PMD one.
Furthermore, the name "shared code" is really confusing as it is shared with 
nothing else in DPDK. And it can be misunderstood as "code for shared 
libraries".

> BTW, the names of "shared code" and "base driver" have been used for
> specific code part for a long time by our Network guys.

Wrong argument. We don't care about your Network guys here. We care about how 
contributors will dive into your code.

I can be wrong so I'd like to have opinions from other people (preferably 
outside of Intel ;).

Thanks
-- 
Thomas