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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/