On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Dec 31, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:20 PM Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com> wrote: > >> This is a revised version of optpolines (formerly named retpolines) for > >> dynamic indirect branch promotion in order to reduce retpoline overheads > >> [1]. > > > > Some of your changelogs still call them "relpolines". > > > > I have a crazy suggestion: maybe don't give them a cute name at all? > > Where it's actually necessary to name them (like in a config option), > > use a description like CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEVIRTUALIZATION or > > CONFIG_PATCH_INDIRECT_CALLS or something.
Cute or not, naming is important. If you want a description instead of a name, it will be a challenge to describe it in 2-3 words. I have no idea what "dynamic devirtualization" means. "Patch indirect calls" doesn't fully describe it either (and could be easily confused with static calls and some other approaches). > I’m totally fine with that (don’t turn me into a "marketing” guy). It was > just a way to refer to the mechanism. I need more feedback about the more > fundamental issues to go on. Naming isn't marketing. It's a real issue: it affects both usability and code readability. -- Josh
