Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] x86/resctrl: Remove few unnecessary rftype flags

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Hi Babu,

On 3/16/2023 2:11 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> Hi Reinette,
> 
> On 3/16/23 15:41, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Babu,
>>
>> On 3/16/2023 1:31 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>> On 3/15/23 13:33, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2023 12:24 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>>> index 15ea5b550fe9..3c86506e54c1 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>>> @@ -3163,7 +3163,7 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct rdtgroup *prdtgrp, *rdtgrp;
>>>>>  	struct kernfs_node *kn;
>>>>> -	uint files = 0;
>>>>> +	uint fflags = 0;
>>>>
>>>> Hoe does changing the variable name from "files" to "fflags" simplify
>>>> the code?
>>>
>>> I should have said readability of the code. Its actually fflags we are
>>> passing to rdtgroup_add_files. While changing flags below, I changed the
>>> variable name to fflags.
>>
>> You are correct in that it is the actual fflags parameter but what it
>> reflects is which files will be created. I do not find that using "files"
>> makes the code unreadable. 
> 
> Everything helps. I changed it because I was already changing few things
> in this function. That is not the only change in this function. Here is
> the main change in this function.

I did read the patch Babu. I trimmed my response to focus on what
I was responding to. Our opinions differ on readability of the current
variable name. This patch can focus on just removing the unnecessary rftype
flags.

Reinette