On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:26:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > We do have a rule for the filenames in that directory that most of > them follow (I am looking at *you*, "dep+plain.litmus"!). So we have > a few options: > > 1. Status quo. (How boring!!!) > > 2. Come up with a better rule mapping the litmus-test file > contents to the filename, and rename things to follow that rule. > (Holy bikeshedding, Batman!) > > 3. Keep it simple and keep the current rule, but make the > combination of spin_lock() and smp_mb__after_spinlock() > have a greater Hamming distance from "lock". Szőke's > patch changed only one of the filenames containing "Lock". > (Bikeshedding, but narrower scope.) > > 4. One of the above, but bring the litmus tests not following > the rule into compliance. > > 5. Give up on the idea of the name reflecting the contents of the > file, and just number them or something. (More bikeshedding > and a different form of confusion.) > > 6. #5, but accompanied by some tool or script that allows easy > searching of the litmus tests by pattern of interaction. > (Easy for *me* to say!) > > 7. Something else entirely. > > Thoughts? Thumbs up for 3. Alan
