linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] selftests/mm/uffd: Rename nr_cpus -> nr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b665b2b2-e407-4a1f-af34-02b6aeb7ff17@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 16:16:29 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] selftests/mm/uffd: Rename nr_cpus -> nr_threads



On 03/03/25 4:04 pm, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> 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.

nr_parallel sounds better for sure. In case you send out a new patch:

Reviewed-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>