On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" <dev-bounces at dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson at 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. >> > >> > 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. > >/Bruce >
