Re: [PATCH RT 1/2 v2] x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on 32bit

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(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@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/