On 2/27/2017 10:01 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > Hello Ferruh, > > On Friday 24 February 2017 03:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > [snip] > >>> >>> Now, we have these possibility: >>> 1. Have a shared library with non rte_* symbols >>> 2. We have shared library with rte_* symbols >>> 3. We have non-net devices (crypto, eventdev, ..) depend on net for >>> these hardware interfaces >>> >>> (2) is hitting performance significantly. >>> (3) it not a clean solution, having driver/crypto depend on driver/net. >>> When new devices are there, more dependencies will occur. >>> >>> In crux, probably we need to have a discussion on (1) and how strongly >>> we feel about that (specially in context of drivers). >> >> Insight of above information, I would be OK with (1). > > Great. Thank you for understanding. > >> >> We can go with option (1) now, since these are not real APIs to user >> application, it can be possible to change them if better solution found. >> >> Do you think is it good idea to have different naming syntax for those >> libraries to clarify they are for PMD internal usage? >> > > Indeed. Current name is librte_common_dpaa2_*. > Do you think librte_drvlib_dpaa2 or librte_drvlib_dpaa2_pmd is better?
common vs drvlib may not be different for who don't know about these libraries, what about using "internal" or "private" kind of keyword?
