[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180619154139.GG3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:41:39 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcutorture: Fix rcu_barrier successes counter
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:12:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:31:15 -0700
> Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> > Think some more about this counter, I think you mean 'successes' as in
> > 'successful attempts' than 'successful test' ? If so, then perhaps you can
> > drop this patch. It wasn't clear to me what the 'successes' meant so I may
> > have been a bit misled into changing its meaning. If on the other hand, it
> > means 'successful test', then yes this patch would be Ok then. thanks! -Joel
>
> In either case, it sounds like a comment should be added to clarify
> what n_barrier_successes actually means ;-)
Or change the name to n_barrier_attempts. Except that there already
is an n_barrier_attempts, and it is incremented on each attempt.
So perhaps the original patch is on-point. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists