Re: Re: [PATCH] uprobes/x86: Rename arch_uprobe->def into ->dflt, minor comment updates

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2014/06/04 4:13), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.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/