lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 1/2 v2] x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on 32bit
(2012/01/26 23:21), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 22:59 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>> Better. If the functions are only for signaling, how
>> about using the "signal" in name? :)
>>
>> conditional_sti/cli_for_signal()
>
> I don't think they are only for signals. The conditional_sti/cli is for
> all callers of do_trap(). But those callers that run on an IST stack use
> the preempt_conditional_sti/cli() code. Perhaps we should call it:
>
> conditional_sti/cli_ist() ?
>
> Actually, I think this is the best name. The "preempt_" one, didn't give
> any annotation about why it was disabling preemption. It was done
> because the stack is on the IST and we can not schedule out. Thus, if we
> add the "_ist()" to it, not only does it annotate why this call is
> special, but also allows x86_32, which does not have an IST, not to have
> to disable preemption.

I agree with your opinion :)

Thanks,

--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-27 10:39    [W:0.103 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site