Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:40 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem |
| |
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@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?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |