> On Nov 10, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > wrote: > > 2016-11-10 16:11, Mcnamara, John: >> I had a look at the html output before and after this patch and I don't >> quite agree with it. I see that you are trying to clean up and make the >> documentation more consistent but I don't know if this is the right way to >> do it. >> >> The problem is that TestPMD is a bit of an outlier. It isn't a sample >> application and it isn't really a test application despite the name (it is >> more of a tester application). Also I don't think that it is a tool/utility >> like the other apps in the target directory (if it is seen as a tool then it >> should be renamed to something like dpdk-tester for consistency). Testpmd >> also has quite a lot of documentation, more than any of our other apps or >> utilities, which again makes it an outlier. > > Yes testpmd is not the same kind of tool as others. It helps for tests, > debugging and demos. > > About the name, as it is packaged as part of the runtime, I think we should > find a better name. As you said it should start with "dpdk-" and it should > contain "net" as it does not test the crypto drivers. > Something like dpdk-testpmd-net.
To me the name dpdk-testpmd-net is a bit long and does testpmd really just test PMDs. I was thinking of the name dpdk-tester is really pretty short and descriptive IMO. Adding net or pmd to the name does not really add anything as dpdk is kind of networking. Just my $0.04 worth. > >> So my preference is to leave TestPMD in the high level index. > > OK I understand your opinion. > >> However, I do think the High level index should be cleaned up a bit and the >> items re-ordered into a more logical sequence. I'll submit a patch for that. > > OK thanks Regards, Keith
