Re: [PATCH 01/22] libperf: Add comments to perf_cpu_map.

[John Garry]

On 10/12/2021 19:08, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * A sized, reference counted, sorted array of integers representing CPU
> > > > + * numbers. This is commonly used to capture which CPUs a PMU is associated
> > > > + * with.
> > > > + */
> > > >    struct perf_cpu_map {
> > > >        refcount_t      refcnt;
> > > > +     /** Length of the map array. */
> > > >        int             nr;

I'd have /s/nr/len/, as it means the map length, as opposed to confusing 
nr meaning with number of cpus in the host or something else. And the 
new comment uses "Length" also.

> > > > +     /** The CPU values. */
> > > >        int             map[];
> > > would simply more distinct names for the variables help instead of or in
> > > addition to comments?
> Well, in this case the typical usage doesn't help, as 'struct
> perf_cpu_map' are being used simply as "map"

There are a lot of instances to change ... but I am all up for using 
consistent and well-meaning variable / argument names per type.

> where it should be cpu_map,
> so we would have:
>
> 	cpu_map->nr
>
> And all should be obvious, no? Otherwise we would have redundant 'cpu',
> like:
>
> 	cpu_map->nr_cpus
>
> And 'map' should really be entries, so:
>
> 	cpu_map->entries[index];
>
> Would be clear enough, o?
>   
> > Thanks John! I agree. The phrase that is often used is intention
> > revealing names. The kernel style for naming is to be brief: