Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce driver name changes

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 7/22/2016 1:54 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:37:22PM +0000, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 5:57 PM
>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>>> Cc: Mcnamara, John; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>>> Subject: [PATCH] doc: announce driver name changes
>>>
>>> Driver names for all the supported devices in DPDK do not have
>>> a naming convention. Some are using a prefix, some are not
>>> and some have long names. Driver names are used when creating
>>> virtual devices, so it is useful to have consistency in the names.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> index f502f86..37d65c8 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>>> @@ -41,3 +41,8 @@ Deprecation Notices
>>>  * The mempool functions for single/multi producer/consumer are
>>> deprecated and
>>>    will be removed in 16.11.
>>>    It is replaced by rte_mempool_generic_get/put functions.
>>> +
>>> +* Driver names are quite inconsistent among each others and they will be
>>> +  renamed to something more consistent (net_ prefix for net drivers and
>>> +  crypto_ for crypto drivers) in 16.11. Some of these driver names are used
>>> +  publicly, to create virtual devices, so a deprecation notice is necessary.
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>
>> Any more comments on this (apart from Christian Ehrhardt's)?
> 
> Yes, since you're suggesting to prefix driver names, shall "librte_pmd_mlx5"
> really become "net_librte_pmd_mlx5" or shortened to "net_mlx5" instead?
> 
> What about using a '/' separator instead of '_'?
> 
> Will this impact directories as well ("net/mlx5" -> "net/net_mlx5")?
> 

For physical net devices, driver name is same as folder name (mlnx5,
ixgbe ...)

For virtual net devices, driver name is folder name with "eth_" prefix
(eth_pcap, eth_ring)

Driver names for net devices looks consistent already, I don't know
about crypto devices but if crypto driver names are inconsistent what do
you think renaming crypto drivers only?

Thanks,
ferruh