Re: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 17:51 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker 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.

Not only does bool describe it better, it should also allow gcc to
optimize it better as well. Unless Peter has a legitimate rational why
using bool in struct is bad, I would keep it as is.
 
> 
> 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.

Would 'is_hooked' be better? 'is_hooking' sounds more like what women in
high heels, really short skirts and lots of makeup are doing late night
on a corner of a Paris street ;-)

A comment to explain the purpose should be added regardless.

-- Steve


--
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/