On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 08:53:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 05:07:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 06:55:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > There is a typo so this checks the wrong variable. "chains" plural vs
> > > > "chain" singular. We already know that "chains" is non-zero.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 7f993623e9eb ("locktorture: Add call_rcu_chains module parameter")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > A name change to increase the Hamming distance would of course also be
> > > good, though less urgent. ;-)
> >
> > "Hamming distance" is such a great phrase. I'm going to use that every
> > time I complain about confusingly similar variable names going forward.
>
> Glad you like it!
>
> But the horrible thing is that I first heard that phrase back in
> the 1970s, and I am the guilty party who created these particular
> too-similar variable names. (Why has the phrase fallen out of favor?
> No idea, really, but one guess has to do with the fact that current
> error-correcting codes must deal with different probabilities of different
> bits flipping in different directions, so you would instead needs a
> weirdly weighted variant of Hamming distance to accomplish anything with
> modern error-correcting codes.)
>
> But how about something like the following?
>
Looks good!
regards,
dan carpenter
