>I agree with having a more complete API, but have some nits to pick. >Could the API be more abstract to reduce ABI issues in future?
Which API? Are you referring to the APIs over ethdev level, or something else? More abstract on input/output data structure definition or else? Could you be more specific? >I know choosing names is hard, but as a Linux developer ethtool has a very >specific meaning to me. >This API encompasses things broader than Linux ethtool and has different >semantics therefore >not sure having something in DPDK with same name is really a good idea. > >It would be better to call it something else like netdev_?? Or dpnet_?? Just to clarify the naming suggestion, in this patch, the prefix ?ethtool? only appears on example and on this patch description. Are you suggesting changing the name over example/l2fwd-ethtool or on this patch description, or may be both?
