Re: [PATCH 2/2] context_tracking, rcu: Rename RCU_DYNTICKS_IDX to CT_DYNTICKS_IDX

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:30:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:53:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:38:40PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Le Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:29:02PM +0100, Valentin Schneider a écrit :
> > > > The symbols relating to the CT_STATE part of context_tracking.state are now
> > > > all prefixed with CT_STATE.
> > > > 
> > > > The RCU dynticks counter part of that atomic variable still involves
> > > > symbols with different prefixes, align them all to be prefixed with
> > > > CT_DYNTICKS, as CT_DYNTICKS_MASK already is.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > It used to be that RCU extended quiescent state and dynticks enter/exit
> > > were coupled. But this isn't the case anymore. Nowadays RCU stops watching
> > > some time later after dynticks is entered.
> > 
> > I knew that consolidation of atomic operations was too good to last...
> > 
> > > I wonder if we shouldn't take advantage of that cleanup for a meaning that
> > > really reflect that RCU stops watching from there.
> > > 
> > > Paul what do you think? CT_EQS_IDX ? CT_RCUEQS_IDX? CT_RCUOFF_IDX? ...?
> > 
> > "After what you just did?  You can just RCU off!!!"
> > 
> > Sorry, couldn't resist...
> > 
> > I am having a hard time getting too excited about the name.  I could
> > suggest CT_RCU_WATCHING_IDX, but that isn't exactly the shortest
> > possible name.
> 
> I really like CT_RCU_WATCHING. It says everything. The _IDX isn't even
> needed after all. What do you think?

Works for me!

							Thanx, Paul