On Wed, Oct 12, 2022, David Matlack wrote: > Rename the perf_test_util.[ch] files to memstress.[ch]. Symbols are > renamed in the following commit to reduce the amount of churn here in Heh, "following commit" is now stale. This is why I encourage using ambiguous phrases, e.g. "in a future commit". This should also be phrased as a command, not a statement of truth. E.g. in the extremely unlikely scenario that symbols are never renamed, this statement is wrong, whereas something like Defer renaming symbols to a future patch to reduce the amount of churn here in the hopes of playing nice with git's file rename detection. states only what is done in the context of this patch while still calling out that the intent is to rename symbols in the (near) future. To be 100% clear, I'm not saying don't describe future changes, there's a _lot_ of value in knowing that a patch is prep work for the future. I'm saying don't explicitly predict the future, because occassionally the prediction will be wrong and the changelog ends up confusing archaeologists. > hopes of playiing nice with git's file rename detection. s/playiing/playing > The name "memstress" was chosen to better describe the functionality > proveded by this library, which is to create and run a VM that > reads/writes to guest memory on all vCPUs in parallel. > > "memstress" also contains the same number of chracters as "perf_test", > making it a drop-in replacement in symbols, e.g. function names, without > impacting line lengths. Also the lack of underscore between "mem" and > "stress" makes it clear "memstress" is a noun. > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> Changelog nits aside, Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
