Stephen, From: Wang, Liang-min Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:47 AM To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev at dpdk.org Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/4] User-space Ethtool
>>I agree with having a more complete API, but have some nits to pick. >>Could the API be more abstract to reduce ABI issues in future? >Which API? Are you referring to the APIs over ethdev level, or something else? >More abstract on input/output data structure definition or else? Could you be >more specific? >>I know choosing names is hard, but as a Linux developer ethtool has a very >>specific meaning to me. >>This API encompasses things broader than Linux ethtool and has different >>semantics therefore >>not sure having something in DPDK with same name is really a good idea. >> >>It would be better to call it something else like netdev_?? Or dpnet_?? >Just to clarify the naming suggestion, in this patch, the prefix ?ethtool? >only appears on example and on this patch description. >Are you suggesting changing the name over example/l2fwd-ethtool or on this >patch description, or may be both? Have not heard your feedback on last request?
