On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:11:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:14:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: [ . . . ] > > > BTW., could we please also rename this code from 'PERF_TEST'/'perf test' > > > to 'PERFORMANCE_TEST'/'performance test'? At first glance I always > > > mistakenly believe that it's somehow related to perf, while it isn't. =B-) > > > > Would it be better to call it 'RCUPERF_TEST' instead of the > > 'RCU_PERFORMANCE_TEST' you are proposing? I feel the word 'PERFORMANCE' is > > too long. Also, 'rcuperf test' instead of the 'rcu performance test' you are > > proposing. I am Ok with doing it however you and Paul want it though, let me > > know. > > As long as we are bikeshedding the name... How about refscale.c and > RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST on the one hand and rcuscale.c and RCU_SCALE_TEST on > the other? That keeps the names reasonably short and does not allude > to perf at all. Hearing no objections, I will go with the scale/SCALE names. Thanx, Paul
|