On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 08:53:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 05:07:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 06:55:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > There is a typo so this checks the wrong variable. "chains" plural vs > > > > "chain" singular. We already know that "chains" is non-zero. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 7f993623e9eb ("locktorture: Add call_rcu_chains module > > > > parameter") > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > > > > > > A name change to increase the Hamming distance would of course also be > > > good, though less urgent. ;-) > > > > "Hamming distance" is such a great phrase. I'm going to use that every > > time I complain about confusingly similar variable names going forward. > > Glad you like it! > > But the horrible thing is that I first heard that phrase back in > the 1970s, and I am the guilty party who created these particular > too-similar variable names. (Why has the phrase fallen out of favor? > No idea, really, but one guess has to do with the fact that current > error-correcting codes must deal with different probabilities of different > bits flipping in different directions, so you would instead needs a > weirdly weighted variant of Hamming distance to accomplish anything with > modern error-correcting codes.) > > But how about something like the following? >
Looks good! regards, dan carpenter
