Rename kernels

[geriJana]

Rename some of the kernels - their configure options - to match the subroutines names.

[geriJana]

Q: weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic as d3q27 routine for mrt_generic. How to proceed with this? See code snippet below:

 case ('mrt_generic')
      select case (trim(layout))
      case ('d3q27')
        compute => weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic
      case ('d3q19')
        compute => mrt_advRel_d3q19_generic
      case default
        compute => mrt_advRel_generic
      end select

My suggestion: I create a new case (mrt_weighted_generic) for weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic and remove it from mrt_generic. Instead I'll add messages where necessary.

[geriJana]

As I'm now working on it....

Q:
How should we name the correction routine bgk_HybridRecursiveRegularizedCorr, which only differs in the blending parameter sigma but is now called for different configure options as listed below:

    case ('hrr_bgk_corrected', 'prr_bgk_corrected', 'rr_bgk_corrected')
      select case (trim(layout))
      case ('d3q27')
        compute => bgk_HybridRecursiveRegularizedCorr_d3q27
      case ('d3q19')
        compute => bgk_HybridRecursiveRegularizedCorr_d3q19
      case ('d2q9')
        compute => bgk_HybridRecursiveRegularizedCorr_d2q9
      case default
        write(logUnit(1),*) 'Stencil '//trim(layout)//' is not supported yet!'
        call tem_abort()
      end select

Suggestion:
bgk_recursiveRegularizedCorrected_template
Please note also the change of word ordering and removed trailing capital later in routine name.

[geriJana]

See comments above:

then we should change all the other recursive, regularized ones... See code below:

case ('prr_bgk')
      select case (trim(layout))
      case ('d3q27')
        compute => bgk_ProjectedRecursiveRegularized_d3q27

Removing trailing capital letter everywhere in routine names.

Q: Should it be

1. bgk_projectedRecursiveRegularized
2. projectedRecursiveRegularized_bgk
   ?

[geriJana]

@KannanMasilamani please have a look.

[geriJana]

• Update recheck cases to include also the renamed configure options for the schemes like mrt_weighted for comp and incomp.

[haraldkl]

My suggestion: I create a new case (mrt_weighted_generic) for weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic and remove it from mrt_generic. Instead I'll add messages where necessary.

Sounds good to me.

[KannanMasilamani]

Q: weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic as d3q27 routine for mrt_generic. How to proceed with this? See code snippet below:

 case ('mrt_generic')
      select case (trim(layout))
      case ('d3q27')
        compute => weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic
      case ('d3q19')
        compute => mrt_advRel_d3q19_generic
      case default
        compute => mrt_advRel_generic
      end select

My suggestion: I create a new case (mrt_weighted_generic) for weighted_mrt_advRel_d3q27_generic and remove it from mrt_generic. Instead I'll add messages where necessary.

Just to understand the generic, I thought we used generic keyword to compute kernels which are stencil independent. Now we have generic for d3q19 and d3q27, why?

[geriJana]

Just to understand the generic, I thought we used generic keyword to compute kernels which are stencil independent. Now we have generic for d3q19 and d3q27, why?

'Now' is good. It's like that for a while. Besides, I don't know what you once decided.

[haraldkl]

Suggestion:
bgk_recursiveRegularizedCorrected_template
Please note also the change of word ordering and removed trailing capital later in routine name.

This is about the routine name not the configuration option, right? I wouldn't call it _template, just bgk_recursiveRegularizedCorrected sounds about right, or does this create a conflict somewhere? For the subroutine names capitalization doesn't really matter in Fortran (Though it's good to keep it consistent). From my point of view even bgk_rrc would suffice for the subroutine name.

[haraldkl]

Q: Should it be

bgk_projectedRecursiveRegularized
projectedRecursiveRegularized_bgk

Going by the other names, it would be bgk_projectedRecursiveRegularized, as far as I can see.

[haraldkl]

Could we avoid using strings over two lines? Instead of doing that, I'd prefer to have:

Suggested change

	write(logUnit(1),*) 'Checking admissibility of omegas for parametrized &
	& Cumulant scheme'
	write(logUnit(1),*) 'Checking admissibility of omegas for parametrized' &
	& // ' Cumulant scheme'

[haraldkl]

Some more discussion on this is found in #10.