From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F37B2A58 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:09:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-40ed-7aac-c0ff-fec2-933b.dyn6.twc.com ([2606:a000:111b:40ed:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1bw7fM-0006xU-CD; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:09:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:09:11 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Shreyansh Jain Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "david.marchand@6wind.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20161017130911.GA19884@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1475847187-28967-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <3500403.rczxDexAsB@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] eal/drivers: prefix driver REGISTER macros with EAL X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:09:39 -0000 On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 12:47:59PM +0000, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 7:15 PM > > To: Shreyansh Jain > > Cc: david.marchand@6wind.com; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] eal/drivers: prefix driver REGISTER macros with EAL > > > > 2016-10-07 19:03, Shreyansh Jain: > > > DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI -> EAL_REGISTER_PCI > > > DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI_TABLE -> EAL_REGISTER_PCI_TABLE > > > > Why not RTE_ prefix instead of EAL_? > > Because while searching for similar naming pattern I came across other macros like EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ which were within librte_eal/eal/* folders. > This is why we were suggesting to make the regex in the makefile more specific, to avoid matching on the TAILQ macro. > > Why 3 patches? As there is no specific comment in each, I think you can > > squash. > > Because each of the patch are common and tightly related changes. The replacement touches a large number of files, even though the change itself is small. By splitting, it makes review (or minor misses) easier - at least for me. > Anyways, if as a maintainer you prefer having a single bulk, I have no issues. > > I will send next version with RTE_* and the 'grep -E' suggestion from Neil. > > - > Shreyansh >