On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:41:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:12:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:31:15 -0700 > > Joel Fernandes <joe...@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. ;-)
Cool, added a comment just to clarify it and resent the updated patch. thanks! - Joel
