From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 978F0C433F5 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080933C9DDA for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:34:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 341EC3C9DB4 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:34:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 833DC6009D9 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:34:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F76F210F6; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:34:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1644478445; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZxaSwN/QQsXF37FkXMNvqzdVKXgjKxaFZ+IoTpFvaVY=; b=Lc91NAnVv5XqtSA5EpiaVhRztXBdmGygcyMT69tVnvRfe16HuQ5LhHhCBbSOY3ciRr/xZB B9DgLx4X1M+fzfjnBfrQmimDfVhZl2CO6Z+gBEAoRCiLRi2mQMGUZktnMepTAr0RatVMoQ A8DQ+EtrtkAChOaZtx6CKgJcHLo67pI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1644478445; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZxaSwN/QQsXF37FkXMNvqzdVKXgjKxaFZ+IoTpFvaVY=; b=8UX16Z9XEVvw9dJq3KdygFiosgHIc7fo+zahtcTQNYERCpXMjbe/DsnbXLNiij8BLNz3ob jCVGxit7gBdhSvAA== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D212A3B85; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:34:05 +0000 (UTC) References: <20220208140322.6842-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <20220208140322.6842-3-rpalethorpe@suse.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Li Wang Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:32:27 +0000 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87a6ezkwes.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] API/cgroup: Shorten cgroup to cg in most symbols X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: LTP List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello Li, Li Wang writes: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:04 PM Richard Palethorpe via ltp wrote: > > With the current naming it is common to have 'group' repeated 3 or > even 4 times in one line. This causes a number of readability > problems. Renaming it to cg reduces the amount of repetition. > > The one place it is not renamed is in tst_test because it won't cause > repetition there. Meanwhile it is easier to search the internet for > 'linux cgroup' than 'linux cg'. > > Li Wang suggested renaming tst_cg to tst_cg_test because it is > consistent with tst_cg_drain. However I think tst_cg is used so often > that it is more important to have shorter lines. > > To be honest, I only wanted that tst_cg_test pointer :). I understand, but I saw that a lot of lines had become too long with other changes. It's starting to get difficult to manage. > > But I have no objection to renaming 'tst_cgroup_*' to 'tst_cg_*' > for the whole APIs. (Though I don't like it) > > Let's hear more voices from peers. ;-) -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp