From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] ethdev: add lock to port allocation
	check
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 01:47:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4197647.NnQ7NCaPt5@xps>
References: <20180509094337.26112-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20180510133516.6552e936@xeon-e3> <8877388.Xvcb3uZcyi@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
 Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E891D1BB5F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 11 May 2018 01:47:13 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <8877388.Xvcb3uZcyi@xps>
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>

11/05/2018 00:13, Thomas Monjalon:
> 10/05/2018 22:35, Stephen Hemminger:
> > On Wed, 9 May 2018 14:21:17 +0200
> > Ga=EBtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> wrote:
> >=20
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > Personally, used to the convention of:
> >     rte_eth_dev_find(name)
> > and
> >     _rte_eth_dev_find(name)
> >=20
> > The _ implies internal version without lock.
>=20
> It is a matter of taste.
> We have chosen "nolock" in v2, and I think it is explicit.

After a second thought, I have decided to follow the underscore convention:
	_rte_eth_dev_allocated