On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:06:40AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > +++ b/kernel/user_hooks.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > > > +#include <linux/user_hooks.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +struct user_hooks {
> > > > + bool hooking;
> > > > + bool in_user;
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > I really detest using bool in structures.. but that's just me. Also this
> > > really wants a comment as to wtf 'hooking' means. in_user I can just
> > > about guess.
> >
> > I really don't mind changing that to int. I just like them as
> > bool because they better describe the purpose of the field.
> >
> > hooking means that the hooks are set (the TIF flag is set on
> > the current task and we also handle the exception hooks).
> >
> > I can call that is_hooking instead? And/or add a comment to
> > explain the purpose of this.
>
> Please don't use this horrible naming - use something more
> technical like struct user_callback and callback::active, ok?
Ok, user callback should be fine. I'll respin with that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
