[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538E8FAA.7010302@hitachi.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:16:58 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] uprobes/x86: Rename arch_uprobe->def into ->dflt,
minor comment updates
(2014/06/04 4:13), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And this is how it was named when I wrote this code. Unfortunately gcc
>>> dislikes this name ;) So I renamed it to ->def. Then I was asked to
>>> rename it and I agree, ->def doesn't look good.
>>>
>>> Could you suggest something better?
>>
>> So exactly what do those fields do? If it's scratch register handling,
>> would it be logical to name it arch_uprobe->scratch, or so?
>
> Not only, ->fixups encodes other flags. and ->ilen is used by UPROBE_FIX_CALL.
>
> arch_uprobe->def contains the arguments for default_xol_ops methods, currently
> this handles everything except relative jmp/call insns.
>
> So perhaps ->dflt is not that ugly in this case? I simply do not see anything
> better. But again, I agree with any name in advance.
Hmm, how about ->defparam ? :)
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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