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 at 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)
