On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 03:48:38PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > > > On 03/03/25 3:17 pm, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:06:35PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > > > Taking a cursory look at the test, it creates three threads for each cpu. > > > The bounding of the variable is fine but that being the reason to rename the > > > variable is not making sense to me. > > > > Hmm yeah the name needs to be more abstract. Do you think nr_workers > > would be confusing? Or even just "parallelism" or nr_parallel? Or any > > other ideas? > > > > FWIW I briefly looked at just cleaning this up to remove the global > > variable but that's a bigger time investment than I can afford here I > > think. (The local variable in stress() would still need a better name > > anyway). > > > > Thanks for the review BTW! > > Your welcome. > > I personally prefer leaving it as is; unless someone comes up and completely > cleans up the structure, let us save our collective brain cycles for more > meaningful battles than renaming variables :) Hmm, I think that's a false economy on brain cycles. A variable called nr_cpus that isn't a number of CPUs is bound to waste a bunch of mental energy at some point in the future. Unless you strongly object I'll go for nr_parallel. It's not a great name but, well... I think that probably just suggests it's not a great variable, and I don't have time to fix that.
