30/05/2019 12:15, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:07:44AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 29-May-19 9:11 PM, David Marchand wrote: > > > On the names of the functions, could we have something shorter ? > > > The prefix rte_eal_mcfg_ is not necessary from my pov. > > > > I can drop the mcfg, but IMO all of these locking functions should be kept > > under one namespace, and rte_eal_ is too broad. > > I think most/all developers are aware that memory is part of eal, so > rte_mcfg_ prefix (or rte_memcfg) might work.
Why not being explicit with "rte_mem_config_", same as the structure?
