From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add an API to query enabled core index Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:50:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1487472.hZgYJQSpCy@xps13> References: <1402519509-26653-1-git-send-email-Patrick.Lu@intel.com> <9007853.cgh6aaULN3@xps13> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA35210@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: "Richardson, Bruce" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA35210-kPTMFJFq+rELt2AQoY/u9bfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-06-11 21:57, Richardson, Bruce: > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > 2014-06-11 13:45, Patrick Lu: > > > The new API rte_lcore_id2() will return an index from enabled lcores > > > starting from zero. > > > > I think core_id2 is not a representative name. > > What do you think of renaming core_id as lcore_hwid and core_id2 as > > lcore_index? > > I like lcore_index as the name for the new function. However, I'm not sure > in that case that we want/need to rename the old one. I think it would be not easy to distinguish id and index. So I prefer hwid/index. And lcore is more precise than core. -- Thomas