Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] x86/power: Sprinkle some noinstr

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +	/*
> +	 * Definitely wrong, but at this point we should have at least enough
> +	 * to do CALL/RET (consider SKL callthunks) and this avoids having
> +	 * to deal with the noinstr explosion for now :/
> +	 */
> +	instrumentation_begin();

BTW., readability side note: instrumentation_begin()/end() are the 
misnomers of the century - they don't signal the start/end of instrumented 
code areas like the name falsely & naively suggests, but the exact 
opposite: start/end of *non-*instrumented code areas.

As such they should probably be something like:

	noinstr_begin();
	...
	noinstr_end();

... to reuse the nomenclature of the 'noinstr' attribute?

Thanks,

	Ingo