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. >
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 :) Neil
