On Tuesday 11 October 2016 08:27 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:57:29PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 2016-10-11 09:38, Neil Horman: >>> This also begs the question in my mind, is it really worth changing the >>> macro? >>> I really don't think it is. The registration macros are pretty descriptive >>> as >>> they stand, and have already changed 3 or 4 times in the last 6 months, >>> which >>> suggests to me that any change here is really just churn more than >>> meaningful >>> change. You can make the argument that the name might be more in line with >>> the >>> library its implemented in or what not, but in truth, its easy to understand >>> what the macros do (in their previous or current incantations), and any >>> change >>> that just makes them the same as other macros in their naming is really more >>> trouble than its worth. >> >> Neil, the long term goal is to stop having some identifiers which do not >> start with RTE_ in our exported .h files. >> I think it is a reasonable policy, for a library, to live in a well defined >> namespace.
Understood and agreed. >> > > I don't disagree that a consistent namespace is a nice thing, only that we've > had 3 changes to these macros in the last few months, none of which have > really > moved us toward that goal. > > At least we can agree that the EAL_ macro being proposed isn't the right thing > to do regardless of motivation :) Macro proposed by this patch is not EAL_*. Thomas had already suggested that change for v1; v3 changes it to RTE_PMD_REGISTER_*. --->8--- DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI -> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PCI DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI_TABLE -> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PCI_TABLE DRIVER_REGISTER_VDEV -> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_VDEV DRIVER_REGISTER_PARAM_STRING -> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PARAM_STRING DRIVER_EXPORT_* -> RTE_PMD_EXPORT_* --->8--- - Shreyansh
