From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3792B91 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:55:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f126so187402447wma.1 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:55:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wmrPxf+vW1uMdA8b0hYUUFQOKSnq08eYndY/sLN4fC4=; b=LdrEV267yEcFLYsEukqu4Inp9SGFxlAyCkB3gxxnzF7FykwhhoJahC9/eC0xYhHcKq 5ln55PPWfWRHqc+xNf6U6/rZS65LG5p3TNI3od0SdP/e/2O+rxcPygHuhiNP7zr9w6nJ AYLCu6kzDVX2D6AP4UMFduUR+M9yYJzTgugOJAb86IjlGa1HrtVcsw5/0mY18AodkW7y RUWUcgmKWLAa5lOAPq25NMVoyB4LJC3OI91CIBZ1CjenLI0CELpRlbQISUZzMBu3pHeT Mlx1qiFZ5yBzBfOyc3tFNUbWny7sbkV+ToMaaPAtOVHo55xnO0oHYFqsBMzZLXC8sIzl Sv8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wmrPxf+vW1uMdA8b0hYUUFQOKSnq08eYndY/sLN4fC4=; b=BTSnMDOwJgfBfTrlzEuVJk4tZvDt8zGt5kke5R+UrlZJ50m9YN85VCgP/dmJ0diEUW UDN1WUoZww/orjgjhJiwtFnlseNSC8w/pOHEYrMHTH3c3ABJHNuai0n+GiYPYDYcfWjD cBLG3R1TufOW+KMubguDh2mqE1Ee4Hja+VMI6Ih9bVsL0/oUyTTokGOajg14tMkb4qSk VA5fjq2HTDjK6jOyAMvg9A+KRAF5DSBcRB4Bk3qlsXTh3zSh09n2tWV/qinOquPudVn8 PtDFCj0XyLsEpAwIbN5PgYIF4A1erto1OhrPj8xAHMlvzlLZQGjyrlxT8D2NQdWb6r/0 77/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLN5Z7J+1NvUb6nchPrV2Y1Yjb4+aFEeRZ0pNh0z9gPOcL8OExjK9kpJcibhYLZSI7b X-Received: by 10.194.58.239 with SMTP id u15mr9054190wjq.73.1467215733506; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x83sm4605092wmx.9.2016.06.29.08.55.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1544094.1XHU1bnLrI@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1467208504-13029-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> References: <1467208504-13029-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: rename functions with confusing names X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:55:33 -0000 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. > > 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?