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 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.
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
