[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190405215713.rv46kr5fhl3z3m4z@treble>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:57:13 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 17/29] x86/exceptions: Disconnect IST index and stack
order
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> +/*
> + * The exception stack ordering in [cea_]exception_stacks
> + */
> +enum exception_stack_ordering {
> + ISTACK_DF,
> + ISTACK_NMI,
> + ISTACK_DB,
> + ISTACK_MCE,
> + N_EXCEPTION_STACKS
> +};
While clever, it reads as "interrupt stack" to me. ESTACK or IST_STACK
would be infinitely better.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists