Re: [PATCH 2/2] more sampling fun 2

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

speck for Josh Poimboeuf <speck@linutronix.de> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 03:59:06PM +0100, speck for Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > I'd expect to call this one "SRBDS" a year from now. I find
>> > "srb_sampling" to be confusing and hard to remember because it renames
>> > something that already has an industry standard name.
>> 
>> srb_sampling *is* srbds - just more readable.
>> 
>> We are not giving any new names to the vulns - we're simply making our command
>> line options more readable so that when you have to type them, you either have
>> to remember "srbds" - in that order - or "srb sampling".
>> 
>> Latter is easier for me.
>
> But you're leaving out the "data" portion of the acronym/name.
>
> Either call it "srbds" or "special_register_buffer_data_sampling" -- but
> *please* don't give it a new name.  It will just create more confusion.
>
> If you can't remember what srbds stands for, that's why we have
> documentation and search engines.

Our command line options for this mess are inconsistent already, but for
most of them we have actual acronyms used, so lets just go with srbds.

Having a half correct, but more elaborate one does not really help. If
at all you want to come up with a snarky one like:

   super_random_but_data_stolen = [hell_no, shrug, nsa]

Thanks,

        tglx