(2012/01/26 23:21), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 22:59 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >> Better. If the functions are only for signaling, how >> about using the "signal" in name? :) >> >> conditional_sti/cli_for_signal() > > I don't think they are only for signals. The conditional_sti/cli is for > all callers of do_trap(). But those callers that run on an IST stack use > the preempt_conditional_sti/cli() code. Perhaps we should call it: > > conditional_sti/cli_ist() ? > > Actually, I think this is the best name. The "preempt_" one, didn't give > any annotation about why it was disabling preemption. It was done > because the stack is on the IST and we can not schedule out. Thus, if we > add the "_ist()" to it, not only does it annotate why this call is > special, but also allows x86_32, which does not have an IST, not to have > to disable preemption. I agree with your opinion :) Thanks, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
