From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CFA2BFE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  5 Apr 2016 15:32:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2016 06:32:48 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,444,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="681126817"
Received: from dwdohert-dpdk.ir.intel.com ([163.33.210.69])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2016 06:32:47 -0700
References: <1828032.Xk8haRDBUM@xps13>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
From: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <1828032.Xk8haRDBUM@xps13>
Message-ID: <5703BDB3.3010501@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:29:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1828032.Xk8haRDBUM@xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Change new libraries to have dpdk_ prefix instead of rte_
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:32:53 -0000

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?




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)