The proposed names are definitively better looking, but...

I think that it's good that have the _hash suffix on all the params that expect an hash.
It gives direct information about the specific and particular nature of that argument.

config or options are 2 alternatives which are both good, for me, and both are used in modules, so it's just a matter of choosing one. No real preference by me here.

It also make sense, imho, to keep, for overall coherency, the prefix of the file where they are supposed to be used, so this is related on the naming scheme we choose for the different files (still somehow an open discussion: ksm_config_file? ksm_config? ksm_file? ksm??? ).

Your comment raises a basic point in how to name params, which is reflected in various other comments and doubts on some params:
should we look for internal coherency in names or should we look for better looking / and sometimes more usable and logical names?
I  generally would prefer the first alternative, but this can bring to some long and effectively bad looking and pedantic names, as the ones you mentioned.

So again, many doubts and alternatives, I think our polar star should be the principle of least surprise but also here I fear we maybe have different people having different  perceptions about what is more or less a "surprise".