On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 05:31:22PM +0300, Arnon Warshavsky wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:57 PM > > > To: dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace > > > > > > DPDK is going to be more popular in Linux distributions. > > > It means people will have some DPDK files in their /usr/include and some > > DPDK > > > libraries on their system. > > > > > > Let's imagine someone trying to compile an application which needs > > > rte_ethdev.h. He has to figure out that this "rte header" is provided by > > the DPDK. > > > Hopefully it will be explained on StackOverflow that RTE stands for DPDK. > > > Then someone else will try to run a binary without having installed the > > DPDK > > > libraries. The linker will require libethdev.so (no prefix here). > > > StackOverflow will probably have another good answer (among wrong ones): > > > "Hey Sherlock Holmes, have you tried to install the DPDK library?" > > > Followed by an insight: "You know, the DPDK naming is weird..." > > > And we could continue the story with developers having some naming clash > > > because of some identifiers not prefixed at all. > > > > > > The goal of this email is to get some feedback on how important it is to > > fix the > > > DPDK namespace. > > > > > > If there is enough agreement that we should do something, I suggest to > > > introduce the "dpdk_" prefix slowly and live with both "rte_" and "dpdk_" > > > during some time. > > > We could start using the new prefix for the new APIs (example: crypto) > > or when > > > there is a significant API break (example: mempool). > > > > > > Opinions welcome! > > I don't have an opinion on how important it is to fix the namespace, > > though it does seem like a good idea. > > However if it's to be done, in my opinion it should be completed quickly > > or will just cause more confusion. > > So if rte_cryptoxxx becomes dpdk_cryptoxxx all other libraries should > > follow in next release or two, with > > the resulting ABI compatibility handling. Maybe with dual naming handled > > for several releases, but a > > clear end date when all are converted. > > Else there will be many years with a mix of rte_ and dpdk_ > > > > > > Googling rte functions or error codes usually takes you to dpdk dev email > archive so I don't think it is that much difficult to figure out where rte > comes from. > Other than that , except for my own refactoring pains when replacing a dpdk > version, I do not see a major reason why not. > If Going for dpdk_ prefix, I agree with the quick death approach.
+1: it's a bit weird to keep both, especially for a long while, that every time we turn a rte_ prefix to dpdk_ prefix, we break applications. Instead of breaking applications many times, I'd prefer to break once. Therefore, applications could do a simple global rte_ -> dpdk_ substitute: it doesn't sound that painful then. And here are few more comments: - we should add rte_/dpdk_ prefix to all public structures as well. I'm thinking we are doing well here. I'm just aware that vhost lib does a bad job, which is something I proposed to fix in next release. - If we do the whole change once, I'd suggest to do it ASAP when this release is over. It should be a HUGE change that touches a lot of code, if we do it later, at a stage that a lot of patches for new features have been made or sent out, all of them need rebase. That'd be painful. --yliu