On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 2:55 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The original patch years ago use to have: > > preempt_disable_rt() > > preempt_enable_rt() That may be visually simpler, but I dislike how it's named for some implementation detail, rather than for the semantic meaning. Admittedly I think "preempt_enable_under_spinlock()" may be a bit *too* cumbersome as a name. It does explain what is going on - and both the implementation and the use end up being fairly clear (and the non-RT case could have some debug version that actually tests that preemption has already been disabled). But it is also a ridiculously long name, no question about that. I still feel is less cumbersome than having that "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)" test that also then pretty much requires a comment to explain what is going on. Linus