From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E891D1BB5F for ; Fri, 11 May 2018 01:47:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAF122971; Thu, 10 May 2018 19:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 10 May 2018 19:47:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=xLm64cyfHGRWygFUpHhlMfmGfD FQpqtlvxbrMpAxxK4=; b=cvUljZOPw5DpXuUPg85+uEypodN6wkrC7IaXPGFXsZ xjdVAV8m3Xp4NneE2dZgVxTecfgyGyqnO1R6Laf0+fCGDE0/siXVuUWmKVbXNwYd qL6Ii748i0fjOLn/HNBxGV8DwhYNs/Fr7U+PF2jKyiz3Dflsz2iglzAkHCRM3Qjq M= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=xLm64c yfHGRWygFUpHhlMfmGfDFQpqtlvxbrMpAxxK4=; b=ffYD9HuF8UqkPNPY2tNrlp viuteOE0+tuJVo/iBbPcRgsgoEkPTa3HOkEO9mU3CSpLTFyZAf/qzzCt9IyPIOz8 HsceHyHxxP+rvZ8FWSXd/yl9cVkiex5MrR6zVDYnJFovbsgr5p3LbLp/04d7H4c4 U3Nc7fEZLmFAjKThhUvoaBGXce6kk41Gpayn7s4+jMgUh5m+dwzzrvAjmMQkDo+1 ChJP7kAl7U2oGq7AhmnWFGhpsedoJtOqaI6/H1J+NaZHl8Bzhtz9hELZZdxO9GLE stWwVY9gewUO+IsUKwZk3x3YDsSDD6dhDmfL3CAuzD+tKeiUzKdXulJ/AnAiuS2A == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 82FC5E4488; Thu, 10 May 2018 19:47:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet , Matan Azrad Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 01:47:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4197647.NnQ7NCaPt5@xps> In-Reply-To: <8877388.Xvcb3uZcyi@xps> References: <20180509094337.26112-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20180510133516.6552e936@xeon-e3> <8877388.Xvcb3uZcyi@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 07/11] ethdev: add lock to port allocation check X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 23:47:14 -0000 11/05/2018 00:13, Thomas Monjalon: > 10/05/2018 22:35, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Wed, 9 May 2018 14:21:17 +0200 > > Ga=EBtan Rivet wrote: > >=20 > > > A suggestion about the naming here. > > > Reading subsequent patches, we can see this function being used during > > > ethdev allocation routines. The _lock_free suffix is a little > > > misleading, as for an instant one can think that there is something > > > being freed about an allocated ethdev lock. > > >=20 > > > I would suggest > > >=20 > > > * rte_eth_dev_allocated_nolock > > > or > > > * rte_eth_dev_allocated_lockless > > > (or even rte_eth_lockless_dev_allocated) > > >=20 > > > instead. > >=20 > > Personally, used to the convention of: > > rte_eth_dev_find(name) > > and > > _rte_eth_dev_find(name) > >=20 > > The _ implies internal version without lock. >=20 > It is a matter of taste. > We have chosen "nolock" in v2, and I think it is explicit. After a second thought, I have decided to follow the underscore convention: _rte_eth_dev_allocated