On 3/16/23 16:17, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> On 3/16/2023 2:11 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> Hi Reinette,
>>
>> On 3/16/23 15:41, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Babu,
>>>
>>> On 3/16/2023 1:31 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/23 13:33, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2023 12:24 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>>>> index 15ea5b550fe9..3c86506e54c1 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>>>> @@ -3163,7 +3163,7 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct rdtgroup *prdtgrp, *rdtgrp;
>>>>>> struct kernfs_node *kn;
>>>>>> - uint files = 0;
>>>>>> + uint fflags = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> Hoe does changing the variable name from "files" to "fflags" simplify
>>>>> the code?
>>>>
>>>> I should have said readability of the code. Its actually fflags we are
>>>> passing to rdtgroup_add_files. While changing flags below, I changed the
>>>> variable name to fflags.
>>>
>>> You are correct in that it is the actual fflags parameter but what it
>>> reflects is which files will be created. I do not find that using "files"
>>> makes the code unreadable.
>>
>> Everything helps. I changed it because I was already changing few things
>> in this function. That is not the only change in this function. Here is
>> the main change in this function.
>
> I did read the patch Babu. I trimmed my response to focus on what
> I was responding to. Our opinions differ on readability of the current
> variable name. This patch can focus on just removing the unnecessary rftype
> flags.
Ok. Fine with me.
--
Thanks
Babu Moger
