From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752519AbeEOAnh (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2018 20:43:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:45940 "EHLO mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752336AbeEOAnf (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2018 20:43:35 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqiFx2c2f4+7hkFVZjG+5LIGO6p9RTrBIG1oGh0+CxvXMoPUIH43IDHrvD96MfkkabgWcPTKA== Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:43:34 -0700 From: Joel Fernandes To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , byungchul.park@lge.com, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/8] rcu: Use rcu_node as temporary variable in funnel locking loop Message-ID: <20180515004334.GC209519@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <20180514031541.67247-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20180514031541.67247-6-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20180514180027.GC26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180514180027.GC26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:00:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 08:15:38PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > The funnel locking loop in rcu_start_this_gp uses rcu_root as a > > temporary variable while walking the combining tree. This causes a > > tiresome exercise of a code reader reminding themselves that rcu_root > > may not be root. Lets just call it rcu_node, and then finally when > > rcu_node is the rcu_root, lets assign it at that time. > > > > Just a clean up patch, no logical change. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) > > I agree that my names could use some improvement, but given that you > called it rnp_node in the patch and rcu_node in the commit log, I would > argue that rnp_node has a Hamming-distance problem. ;-) > > How about rnp_start for the formal parameter, rnp for the cursor running > up the tree, and retaining rnp_root for the root? Ok, that's fine with me. Probably easier to read too. I will rewrite it accordingly. thanks, - Joel