Re: [dpdk-dev] FW: [PATCH 5/7] stack: add non-blocking stack implementation

[Eads, Gage]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 3:13 PM
> To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>
> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> arybche...@solarflare.com; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; gavin...@arm.com;
> honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com; n...@arm.com
> Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH 5/7] stack: add non-blocking stack implementation
> 
> 01/03/2019 21:53, Eads, Gage:
> > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> > > > +#define STACK_F_NB 0x0001
> > >
> > > What about adding the RTE_ prefix?
> >
> > I'm fine with either, but there's precedent for flag macros named
> > <module_name>_*. E.g. RING_F_*, MEMPOOL_F_*, ETH_*, and
> SERVICE_F_*.
> 
> They should be fixed.
> Every public symbols should be prefixed to avoid namespace conflict.
> At first, we should rename them and keep the old name as an alias.
> Later, non-prefixed names should be removed after a deprecation notice.
> 

Ok, will fix.

Thanks,
Gage