From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] mempool: rename functions with confusing names Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1544094.1XHU1bnLrI@xps13> References: <1467208504-13029-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3792B91 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:55:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f126so187402447wma.1 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:55:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1467208504-13029-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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?