Re: [PATCH 01/22] libperf: Add comments to perf_cpu_map.

[John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>]

On 10/12/2021 19:08, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * A sized, reference counted, sorted array of integers representing CPU
>>>> + * numbers. This is commonly used to capture which CPUs a PMU is associated
>>>> + * with.
>>>> + */
>>>>    struct perf_cpu_map {
>>>>        refcount_t      refcnt;
>>>> +     /** Length of the map array. */
>>>>        int             nr;

I'd have /s/nr/len/, as it means the map length, as opposed to confusing 
nr meaning with number of cpus in the host or something else. And the 
new comment uses "Length" also.

>>>> +     /** The CPU values. */
>>>>        int             map[];
>>> would simply more distinct names for the variables help instead of or in
>>> addition to comments?
> Well, in this case the typical usage doesn't help, as 'struct
> perf_cpu_map' are being used simply as "map"

There are a lot of instances to change ... but I am all up for using 
consistent and well-meaning variable / argument names per type.

> where it should be cpu_map,
> so we would have:
> 
> 	cpu_map->nr
> 
> And all should be obvious, no? Otherwise we would have redundant 'cpu',
> like:
> 
> 	cpu_map->nr_cpus
> 
> And 'map' should really be entries, so:
> 
> 	cpu_map->entries[index];
> 
> Would be clear enough, o?
>   
>> Thanks John! I agree. The phrase that is often used is intention
>> revealing names. The kernel style for naming is to be brief: