From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] ethdev: add lock to port allocation
 check
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:35:16 -0700
Message-ID: <20180510133516.6552e936@xeon-e3>
References: <20180509094337.26112-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20180509094337.26112-8-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20180509122116.ljistjpz3dfljdqo@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, dev@dpdk.org, Matan Azrad
 <matan@mellanox.com>, stable@dpdk.org
To: =?UTF-8?B?R2HDq3Rhbg==?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com (mail-pg0-f68.google.com [74.125.83.68])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A491B831
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 May 2018 22:35:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id z4-v6so1440665pgu.13
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 May 2018 13:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180509122116.ljistjpz3dfljdqo@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, 9 May 2018 14:21:17 +0200
Ga=C3=ABtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@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.
>=20
> I would suggest
>=20
>   * rte_eth_dev_allocated_nolock
>     or
>   * rte_eth_dev_allocated_lockless
>     (or even rte_eth_lockless_dev_allocated)
>=20
> instead.

Personally, used to the convention of:
    rte_eth_dev_find(name)
and
    _rte_eth_dev_find(name)

The _ implies internal version without lock.

Also allocated to me implies a boolean test only.