Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:26:34 +0100 | From | Dave Martin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 12/31] x86/resctrl: Move max_{name,data}_width into resctrl code |
| |
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:16:45PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 4/17/2024 7:41 AM, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:38:20AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> On 4/11/2024 7:15 AM, Dave Martin wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:19:15PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >>>> Hi James, > >>>> > >>>> On 3/21/2024 9:50 AM, James Morse wrote: > >>>>> @@ -2595,6 +2601,12 @@ static int schemata_list_add(struct rdt_resource *r, enum resctrl_conf_type type > >>>>> if (cl > max_name_width) > >>>>> max_name_width = cl; > >>>>> > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * Choose a width for the resource data based on the resource that has > >>>>> + * widest name and cbm. > >>>> > >>>> Please check series to ensure upper case is used for acronyms. > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>> Reinette > >>> > >>> This patch is just moving existing code around AFAICT. See: > >>> commit de016df88f23 ("x86/intel_rdt: Update schemata read to show data in tabular format") > >>> > >>> Since no new usage of any term is being introduced here, can it be > >>> left as-is? > >>> > >>> There seem to be other uses of "cbm" with this sense in the resctrl > >>> code already. > >> > >> I am not asking to change all existing usages of these terms but in > >> any new changes, please use upper case for acronyms. > > > > While there is a general argument to be made here, it sounds from this > > like you are not requesting a change to this patch; can you confirm? > > Sorry for confusion. I do think in a small change like this it is a good > opportunity to make sure the style is clean. Since this changes the code > anyway, it might as well ensure the style is clean. So, yes, could > you please use CBM instead of cbm.
OK; I had thought that we might be introducing a new inconsistency here by making such a change, but looking at upstream, "CBM" is prevalent in comments in the preexisting x86 code. I should have checked that before; apologies for the unnecessary back-and-forth on this.
So, sure, it makes sense to change it.
Noted.
Cheers ---Dave
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |