On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:43:30PM +0100, Luca Vizzarro wrote: > > On 07/05/2024 13:05, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > Sorry to be late to the reviews here, but since this is a countable value > > > - > > > as you state in the cover letter- would "number" or "count" not be better > > > terms. To me, "quantity" is just a synonym of "amount", and can be used > > > for > > > uncountable values too, e.g. "a quantity of water". > > > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > The change is based on the readability and intuitiveness of the > > configuration file. In which case "number" could be ambiguous: > > > > hugepages_2mb: > > number: 100 > > > > And here I could see "count" working: > > > > hugepages_2mb: > > count: 100 > >
We could use number_of: but that doesn't look great. Count looks fine. > > But since the change is propagated for consistency. "count" would no longer > > be well fitting in the rest: > > > > "description": "The count of hugepages to configure. Hugepage > > size will be the system default." > > > Whatever term is actually used, the description should definitely refer to > "The number of hugepages to configure". This makes sense, let's use "number of" in descriptions. Ideally we'd also use number in code, but it's a bit ambiguous, such as here: def _configure_huge_pages(self, number: int, size: int, force_first_numa: bool) -> None: At a first glance it's not quite clear what "number" is here. "number_of" would be pretty clear, but so would be "count". But using count would mean we're using different words with the same meaning in the same context, which I'd also like to avoid - this is the reason why I was originally ok with quantity. Now I'm not sure what the best option is :-)
