On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Bruce Richardson wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
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?
I think that is good idea.
Application can use ether dpdk::raw::* or dpdk::* API depending on internal
logic.
/Bruce
