[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338517831.13348.455.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:30:31 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86: Allow nesting of the debug stack IDT setting
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 11:58 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > What you have here is a nesting counter, which is good, but I have
> > some objections to the implementation.
> >
> > The name "debug_idt_zero" doesn't convey a counter in any way, shape
> > or form; perhaps debug_stack_users or something like that.
>
> Well, it is 'debug_idt_SET_zero' which is what it is doing, regardless
> of counter (see below). But perhaps we should change it to:
>
> debug_idt_get()
> debug_idt_put()
Bah, silly me, I misunderstood you. You were talking about the counter
itself, not the function names.
OK, will fix.
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists