> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:05 PM > To: Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at > 6wind.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: rename functions with confusing > names > > > > On 06/29/2016 06:02 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: > > > > On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" <dev- > bounces at dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson: > >>>> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what > >>>> their names suggested. The free_count function actually returned > >>>> the number of elements that were allocated from the pool, not the > >>>> number unallocated as the name implied. > > I agree the current API is not appropriate. > > > >>>> Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones, > >>>> * rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count > >>>> * rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count > >>> > >>> What about available/used instead of unallocated/allocated? > >>> > >> > >> I don't particularly mind what the name is, to be honest. I like > "avail" > >> because it is shorter, but I'm a little uncertain about "used", > >> because it implies that the entries are finished with i.e. like a > >> used match, or tissue :-) > >> > >> How about "avail/in_use"? > > > > +1 for those names. > > +1 too. > > rte_mempool_avail_count() > rte_mempool_in_use_count() >
Ok, I'll see about doing a V2 for review. /Bruce