2016-04-11 16:10, Don Provan: > I can't believe you guys are seriously considering changing the prefix from > rte_. That's a nightmare at the practical level, but it really doesn't make > as much sense as some of you seem to think. I've always been really impressed > that the names were prefixed with rte_ instead of dpdk_. While the primary > goal was to provide dataplane capabilities, so much of the library -- > mempools and rings, for example -- is general purpose, so a dpdk_ prefix > wouldn't be appropriate for those routines, anyway. > > The idea that everything in the library should be named "dpdk" is the same > thinking that leads to the monolithic initialization function I've complained > about before. I have major applications that use the DPDK library but do > nothing at all with hardware, yet the library still insists on initializing > the PCI components because there's no concept of using the library for > anything other than receiving packets from hardware.
It's good news to hear that DPDK allows you to develop major applications. The BSD license allows to build a lot of various types of applications. You are perfectly right to give your opinion and complain. You would also be welcome to contribute and fix your concerns.
