Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:09:23 -0700 | Subject | Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3 - dcache |
| |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 2:55 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> 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
| |