Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: rename functions with confusing names

[Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

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@dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson@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()


Thanks