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"? /Bruce