10/05/2018 22:35, Stephen Hemminger: > 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.
It is a matter of taste. We have chosen "nolock" in v2, and I think it is explicit. > Also allocated to me implies a boolean test only. Yes, the name is a bit strange. But it is old and out of the scope of this patch. If we want to change it, it is an API deprecation.
