Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:41:39 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcutorture: Fix rcu_barrier successes counter
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180619062215.221564-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20180619062215.221564-2-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20180619073115.GA241700@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <20180619091223.702f05d6@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180619091223.702f05d6@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180619154139.GG3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:12:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:31:15 -0700
> Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Paul,
> > Think some more about this counter, I think you mean 'successes' as in
> > 'successful attempts' than 'successful test' ? If so, then perhaps you can
> > drop this patch. It wasn't clear to me what the 'successes' meant so I may
> > have been a bit misled into changing its meaning. If on the other hand, it
> > means 'successful test', then yes this patch would be Ok then. thanks! -Joel
> 
> In either case, it sounds like a comment should be added to clarify
> what n_barrier_successes actually means ;-)

Or change the name to n_barrier_attempts.  Except that there already
is an n_barrier_attempts, and it is incremented on each attempt.

So perhaps the original patch is on-point.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul