From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2021 16.29

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 09:54:27PM +0800, fengchengwen wrote:

quoted

On 2021/9/9 20:45, Bruce Richardson wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:29:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

09/09/2021 13:18, Bruce Richardson:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:33:00PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

07/09/2021 14:56, Chengwen Feng:

[snip]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+bool
+rte_dmadev_is_valid_dev(uint16_t dev_id);

I would suggest dropping the final "_dev" in the function name.

The alternative, which I would support, is replacing "rte_dmadev"

with

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

"rte_dma" across the API. This would then become

"rte_dma_is_valid_dev"

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

which is clearer, since the dev is not part of the standard

prefix. It also

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

would fit in with a possible future function of

"rte_dma_is_valid_vchan"

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

for instance.

Yes
The question is whether it would make sense to reserver rte_dma_

prefix

quoted

quoted

quoted

for some DMA functions which would be outside of dmadev lib?
If you think that all DMA functions will be in dmadev,
then yes we can shorten the prefix to rte_dma_.

Well, any DPDK dma functions which are not in dma library should

have the

quoted

quoted

prefix of the library they are in e.g. rte_eal_dma_*, rte_pci_dma_*
Therefore, I don't think name conflicts should be an issue, and I

like

quoted

quoted

having less typing to do in function names (and I believe Morten

was

quoted

quoted

strongly proposing this previously too)

The dmadev is rather short, if change I prefer all public API with

rte_dma_ prefix,

quoted

and don't have rte_dma_dev_ prefix for such start/stop/close. (ps:

the rte_eth_ also

quoted

have rte_eth_dev_close which is painful for OCD).

I agree that having rte_dma_dev_* is unpleasant naming for those
functions,
so if we use rte_dma_ as prefix, any dev should be at the end instead:
i.e. rte_dma_stop_dev, rte_dma_start_dev, rte_dma_close_dev, etc.

I agree about using rte_dma_ as general prefix.

But I disagree about rte_dma_<action>_<object>() function names, such as rte_dma_stop_dev().

We should follow the convention of rte_dma_<object>_<action>(), like in the ethdev library, e.g. rte_eth_dev_get(), rte_eth_fec_get_capability().

Or simply rte_dma_<action>(), if the object is obvious and can be omitted.

I.e. rte_dma_dev_stop() or rte_dma_stop().

quoted

Also should the filename(e.g. rte_dmadev.h) and directory-

name(lib/dmadev) also change ?

quoted

I would keep those names intact.

Keep intact, as Bruce suggests. This also aligns with the ethdev library.

/Bruce