Re: [dpdk-dev] Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Declan Doherty
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:29 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_
> 
> I'd like people opinion of Thomas proposal to have all new libraries use
> a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_*. Although I agree that dpdk_ would
> probably make sense, I don't like the ascetics of inconsistent prefixes
> on dpdk libraries. Any comments?

I suppose it is a bit strange to have rte_ prefix for one set of libraries,
and dpdk_ prefix for others.
If we'd decide to change the prefix, then my vote would be to do
that for all dpdk libraries at once.       
BTW, why do we need to change it at all?
'rte_' is probably not the best one, but at least it is well known/used.
Konstantin 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-04-05 09:48, Trahe, Fiona:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > 2016-04-05 08:53, Fiona Trahe:
> > > > The cryptodev API was introduced in the DPDK 2.2 release.
> > > > Since then it has
> > > >  - been reviewed and iterated for the DPDK 16.04 release
> > > >  - had extensive use by the l2fwd-crypto app,
> > > > 			the ipsec-secgw example app,
> > > > 			the test app.
> > > > We believe it is now stable and the EXPERIMENTAL label should be removed.
> > >
> > > Are you sure sure? :)
> > > It means you will try hard to not change the API anymore or you'll need a
> > > deprecation notice strongly agreed (outside of your team).
> >
> > We're sure sure :)
> 
> I think we could change the namespace before making this API stable.
> What about using a dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_ ?
> (and some macros have CRYPTODEV or CDEV prefixes)
>