* Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:06:40AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > Please don't use this horrible naming - use something more > > technical like struct user_callback and callback::active, ok? > > Ok, user callback should be fine. I'll respin with that.
One problem I have with the word 'hook' is that it's rarely clear whether it's used as a noun or a verb - and the naming in your patch shows that kind of confusion in action. 'callback', while a longer word, is almost always used as a noun within the kernel - and it also has a pretty narrow meaning. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/