On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 19:16:12 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I wonder if raw_preempt_disable() would be another name to use? > > NO! > > The point is that normal non-RT code does *not* disable preemption at > all, because it is already disabled thanks to the earlier spinlock. > > So we definitely do *not* want to call this "raw_preempt_disable()", > because it's actually not supposed to normally disable anything at > all. Only for RT, where the spinlock code doesn't do it. Yeah, I'm just brainstorming ideas on what we could use to make that name a little shorter, and I'm not coming up with much. OK, I'm becoming colorblind with this shed. -- Steve
