On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 03:54:33PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > From: Gregory Etelson <getel...@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 1:37 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>
> > Cc: getel...@nvidia.com <getel...@nvidia.com>; tho...@monjalon.net
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>; mkash...@nvidia.com <mkash...@nvidia.com>;
> > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] rust: support DPDK API
>
<snip>
> +
> > +use dpdklib::rte_ethdev::{
>
> As per first reply, I'd like to see the end-result safe-Rust namespacing be
> shortened.
>
> This can be easily done by renaming the name= in Cargo.toml, and
> removing the "rte_" prefix at bindgen output stage for each file.
> dpdk::ethdev:: { RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN, ... };
>
> Perhaps its a good method to put the generated (unsafe, raw-C-bindings) in
> this
> namespace, and build a safe crate (with the dpdk::ethdev::* namespacing) over
> it.
> Thoughts?
>
I love naming discussions :-)
+1 to separate namespaces for low-level DPDK wraps, and more rustic
higher-level APIs. However, that doesn't mean that the names get to be
ugly! Let's definitely remove the "lib" in dpdklib (or libdpdk), and the
"rte_" prefix from libs.
How about having "dpdk::raw::*" e.g. "dpdk::raw::ethdev" for low-level
wraps and "dpdk::*" e.g. "dpdk::ethdev" for higher level apis?
/Bruce
