* Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ struct arch_uprobe {
> > > struct {
> > > u8 fixups;
> > > u8 ilen;
> > > - } def;
> > > + } dflt;
> >
> > Pls lts nt use slly abbrvtns, ok?
>
> OK. As I said in the previous dicussion, I agree with any naming.
>
> > How about arch_uprobe->default?
>
> And this is how it was named when I wrote this code. Unfortunately gcc
> dislikes this name ;) So I renamed it to ->def. Then I was asked to
> rename it and I agree, ->def doesn't look good.
>
> Could you suggest something better?
So exactly what do those fields do? If it's scratch register handling,
would it be logical to name it arch_uprobe->scratch, or so?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
