On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 03:20:00PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. Very good! Any nominations for the lucky replacement for "Lock"? Thanx, Paul
