> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:06 PM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; nhor...@tuxdriver.com; Hemant Agrawal
> <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 03/47] common/dpaa2: adding qbman driver
>
> 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?
I am ok with librte_pvtlib_dpaa2_pmd or librte_pvtlib_dpaa2. Sounds fine?
('internal' is too long and its abbreviation 'int' doesn't make it easier
to read. :D )
-
Shreyansh
