On 06/03, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > 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?
Not only, ->fixups encodes other flags. and ->ilen is used by UPROBE_FIX_CALL. arch_uprobe->def contains the arguments for default_xol_ops methods, currently this handles everything except relative jmp/call insns. So perhaps ->dflt is not that ugly in this case? I simply do not see anything better. But again, I agree with any name in advance. Oleg. -- 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/
