(2014/06/04 4:13), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > 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.
Hmm, how about ->defparam ? :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- 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/
