On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Would be still nice to have it as an add on patch, if you agree with
>> >> my arguments.
>> >
>> > Given that there are only a very small number of callers left and
>> > they're all Obviously Correct (tm), I'm not too worried about it.
>> > Maybe if we kill off __copy_to_user, I'll be inspired to kill off
>> > user_mode_ignore_vm86 as well :)
>>
>>
>> I was looking at the code involving this function and it looks
>> like a much better name for user_mode_ignore_vm86() would be
>> user_mode_cs().
>>
>> Every time we use it, we check vm8086 mode just before it:
>>
>> perf_event.c
>>
>> if (regs->flags & X86_VM_MASK)
>> return 0x10 * regs->cs;
>>
>> if (user_mode_ignore_vm86(regs) && regs->cs != __USER_CS)
>> return get_segment_base(regs->cs);
>>
>>
>> traps.c (three similar instances):
>>
>> if (v8086_mode(regs)) {
>> ...
>> goto exit;
>> }
>> if (user_mode_ignore_vm86(regs))...
>>
>>
>> "_ignore_vm86" part doesn't quite work as an explanation.
>> user_mode_cs() would immediately tell me "do we have a user's cs?"
>
> So what the function name wanted to express is something like this:
>
> if (user_mode_vm86_mode_already_checked_so_this_is_marginally_faster_but_dont_use_it_otherwise_because_that_would_be_a_roothole())
> {
> ...
> }
>
> but that name was considered somewhat long.
LOL :D
Seriously, though. I do think that user_mode_cs(regs) is a good name.
It's short.
It describes what it in fact checks.
"(is it) user mode cs" reads as a valid English phrase, whereas
"(is it) user mode ignore vm86" does not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|