[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130810190544.GA13658@logfs.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:05:44 -0400
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86: Move cond resched for copy_{from,to}_user
into low level code 64bit
On Sat, 10 August 2013 20:23:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Sounds like the debug aspect and the preemption point addition need
> to be sorf-of split into two different functions/macros and each used
> separately.
>
> Something like keep the current might_sleep and have debug_sleep or
> similar which does only __might_sleep without the resched...
I would argue for using "might_sleep" for the debug variant. Before
reading this thread I wasn't even aware of the non-debug aspect.
After all, might_sleep naturally reads like some assertion.
"might_preempt" for the non-debug version? "cond_preempt"?
Jörn
--
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it.
-- Aristotle
--
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