On Wed, 9 May 2018 14:21:17 +0200
Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> I would suggest
>
> * rte_eth_dev_allocated_nolock
> or
> * rte_eth_dev_allocated_lockless
> (or even rte_eth_lockless_dev_allocated)
>
> instead.
Personally, used to the convention of:
rte_eth_dev_find(name)
and
_rte_eth_dev_find(name)
The _ implies internal version without lock.
Also allocated to me implies a boolean test only.
