On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:12:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:31:15 -0700
> Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> > Think some more about this counter, I think you mean 'successes' as in
> > 'successful attempts' than 'successful test' ? If so, then perhaps you can
> > drop this patch. It wasn't clear to me what the 'successes' meant so I may
> > have been a bit misled into changing its meaning. If on the other hand, it
> > means 'successful test', then yes this patch would be Ok then. thanks! -Joel
>
> In either case, it sounds like a comment should be added to clarify
> what n_barrier_successes actually means ;-)
Or change the name to n_barrier_attempts. Except that there already
is an n_barrier_attempts, and it is incremented on each attempt.
So perhaps the original patch is on-point. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
