Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] bus/pci: cleanup private symbols

2020-05-07 Thread David Marchand
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:25 PM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > If that is correct, we should use pci_* prefix for static symbols, > > rte_* for everything else, even "internal" symbols -- in the sense > > that they are meant to be opaque to the user, but will still be linked > > in static build. > >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] bus/pci: cleanup private symbols

2020-05-07 Thread David Marchand
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:21 PM Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > > On 06/05/20 14:43 +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > Internal symbols do not need the rte_ prefix. > > Some symbols do not need to be exposed in the private header and have > > been made static. > > > > Fixes: c752998b5e2e ("pci: introduce libra

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] bus/pci: cleanup private symbols

2020-05-06 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 6 May 2020 19:21:23 +0200 Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > On 06/05/20 14:43 +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > Internal symbols do not need the rte_ prefix. > > Some symbols do not need to be exposed in the private header and have > > been made static. > > > > Fixes: c752998b5e2e ("pci: introduce li

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] bus/pci: cleanup private symbols

2020-05-06 Thread Gaëtan Rivet
On 06/05/20 14:43 +0200, David Marchand wrote: > Internal symbols do not need the rte_ prefix. > Some symbols do not need to be exposed in the private header and have > been made static. > > Fixes: c752998b5e2e ("pci: introduce library and driver") > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand For this pat