On 07/16/2013 01:27 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/14/2013 09:20:00 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 07/13/2013 07:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:50 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
[1] SOFT_DISABLE_INTS seems an odd name for something that updates the
software state to be consistent with interrupts being *hard* disabled.
I can sort of see the logic in it, but it's confusing when first
encountered. From the name it looks like all it would do is set
soft_enabled to 1.
It's indeed odd. Also worse when we use DISABLE_INTS which is just a
macro on top of SOFT_DISABLE_INTS :-)
I've been wanting to change the macro name for a while now and never
got to it. Patch welcome :-)
What about SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE?
What is semantically different about that from SOFT_DISABLE_INTS?
This is close to name hard_irq_disable() :)
Except that one says "soft" and the other says "hard". :-)
Yes, I want to leave as SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE and close to hard_irq_disable() just
since I think the irq state is always needed to be reconciled when we disable
soft irq. So maybe we shouldn't necessarily underline to sync the software state
here as I understand.
But looks you also agree with that name, RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE, Ben mentioned
previously. So I'd like to turn back :)
And then remove all DISABLE_INTS as well?
You mean opencode WHATEVER_WE_CALL_IT(r3,r4) everwhere? Why?
OOPS :-P
Tiejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
