2017-02-28 05:27, Shreyansh Jain:
> From: Ferruh Yigit
> > On 2/27/2017 10:01 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> > > On Friday 24 February 2017 03:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >> 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 )
There is already "lib" in "librte". What about librte_internal_dpaa2_ prefix?
Internal is really the best word as you are requesting DPDK to host
libraries used only for your drivers.
I thought you agreed to host them outside of the DPDK repository.
What is your reason to keep pushing in DPDK?
