tools/memory-model: Rename litmus tests to comply to norm7

norm7 produces the 'normalized' name of a litmus test,  when the test
can be generated from a single cycle that passes through each process
exactly once. The commit renames such tests in order to comply to the
naming scheme implemented by this tool.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-14-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ CoWW+poonceonce.litmus
 	Test of write-write coherence, that is, whether or not two
 	successive writes to the same variable are ordered.
 
-IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
+IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
 	Test of independent reads from independent writes with smp_mb()
 	between each pairs of reads.  In other words, is smp_mb()
 	sufficient to cause two different reading processes to agree on
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce.litmus
 	Can a release-acquire chain order a prior store against
 	a later load?
 
-LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus
+LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus
 	Does a control dependency and an smp_mb() suffice for the
 	load-buffering litmus test, where each process reads from one
 	of two variables then writes to the other?
@@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ MP+porevlocks.litmus
 	As below, but with the first access of the writer process
 	and the second access of reader process protected by a lock.
 
-MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus
+MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
 	Does a smp_wmb() (between the stores) and an smp_rmb() (between
 	the loads) suffice for the message-passing litmus test, where one
 	process writes data and then a flag, and the other process reads
 	the flag and then the data.  (This is similar to the ISA2 tests,
 	but with two processes instead of three.)
 
-R+mbonceonces.litmus
+R+fencembonceonces.litmus
 	This is the fully ordered (via smp_mb()) version of one of
 	the classic counterintuitive litmus tests that illustrates the
 	effects of store propagation delays.
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ R+mbonceonces.litmus
 R+poonceonces.litmus
 	As above, but without the smp_mb() invocations.
 
-SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
 	This is the fully ordered (again, via smp_mb() version of store
 	buffering, which forms the core of Dekker's mutual-exclusion
 	algorithm.
@@ -123,12 +123,12 @@ SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus
 S+poonceonces.litmus
 	As below, but without the smp_wmb() and acquire load.
 
-S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
 	Can a smp_wmb(), instead of a release, and an acquire order
 	a prior store against a subsequent store?
 
 WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus
-WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus
+WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus
 	These two are members of an extension of the MP litmus-test
 	class in which the first write is moved to a separate process.
 	The second is forbidden because smp_store_release() is
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus
 	As above, but with smp_mb__after_spinlock() immediately
 	following the spin_lock().
 
-Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus
+Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus
 	Is the ordering provided by a release-acquire chain sufficient
 	to make ordering apparent to accesses by a process that does
 	not participate in that release-acquire chain?