From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7047B0FC
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:20:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x13so826370wgg.33
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=Asy6j2yRnDcybtpzGaFNcDlWSM79P5679sSJdnxCAAE=;
 b=df8mrok+jJFlMUcxOeuieZB2P2oXhZ4ZK2h6rmu9MUJ6mo2LV2OiXBmQ5BUApymSFt
 MFeGON6iGFsf3ax/CeBIj7spSU+Jc+sA4PQP4bUOYlnt+oP6R7Djbk9Toc4yrebvsH+L
 Rae0cByTAFOUh1rVhpxx6/hCxGDw8IjkiK989qmoA65mfpMQSybx3Q4+8PHUQ2JfoasQ
 yF++8rKTOK7w5gI9FAlJNz7KAZ1xRLimIyQVOARQif9Jp4YGTq5qk3uuaYEn8gdSJlWs
 CUHek95ecB/QMmnYY/7R1TzYG6idNJ7wLH6JCkgapZZkqGCWR5F0E7y909FcZcVQRe1W
 CtUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkp/cMbPtAVHwPmcgXK8RS1Vcm/Njjc0stouBizbL1WqsgvNid7idW8mok6QPFoIvcfmcy
X-Received: by 10.194.200.65 with SMTP id jq1mr57718665wjc.33.1402561219602;
 Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.16.0.195] (6wind.net2.nerim.net. [213.41.180.237])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ej2sm422403wjd.21.2014.06.12.01.20.18
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <539962C0.10701@6wind.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:20:16 +0200
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, 
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 "Lu, Patrick" <patrick.lu@intel.com>
References: <1402519509-26653-1-git-send-email-Patrick.Lu@intel.com>
 <9007853.cgh6aaULN3@xps13>
 <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA35210@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA35210@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add an API to query enabled core index
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:20:05 -0000

Hello,

On 06/11/2014 11:57 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
>> I think core_id2 is not a representative name.
>> What do you think of renaming core_id as lcore_hwid and core_id2 as
>> lcore_index?
>>
>> --
> I like lcore_index as the name for the new function. However, I'm not sure in that case that we want/need to rename the old one.

What about lcore_rank ?
It may avoid confusion between "id" and "index", which are quite
close visually and phonetically.

I agree that we should not change the old lcore_id, its name is already
appropriate.

Regards,
Olivier