Re: [PATCH 2/3] lockdep: clarify size for LOCKDEP_*_BITS configs

[Carlos Llamas]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 10:42:52AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 10:52:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/6/24 10:47, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 09:36:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > Many kernel developers understand that BITS refers to a size of 2^n. Besides
> > > > LOCKDEP, there are also many instances of such use in other kconfig entries.
> > > > It can be a bit odd to explicitly state that just for LOCKDEP.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Longman
> > > Right, and similar to BITS there is SHIFT, which is also a common way to
> > > specify the 2^n values. I'd point out though, that it is also common to
> > > clarify the "power of two" explicitly. To name a few examples that are
> > > doing so: SECURITY_SELINUX_SIDTAB_HASH_BITS, NODES_SHIFT, CMA_ALIGNMENT,
> > > IP_VS_SH_TAB_BITS, LOG_BUF_SHIFT but there is more.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps this is because the audience for these configs is not always a
> > > kernel developer?
> > > 
> > > Anyway, this is pretty much a trivial patch to address Andrew's comment
> > > below. But let me know if you think I should drop it, it seems to me it
> > > can be helpful.
> > > 
> > >    [...]
> > >    btw, the help text "Bitsize for MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS" is odd.  What's a
> > >    bitsize?  Maybe "bit shift count for..." or such.
> > 
> > I am not against this patch. Currently I am neutral. Let's see what Boqun
> > think about it.
> > 
> 
> This looks good to me. Maybe it's a bit verbose but that's what the doc
> part should be: providing enough information so more people can be on
> the same page. Please keep this one, thanks!

Sounds good. I'll send out the v2 and keep this patch then.

Thanks,
Carlos Llamas