Re: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:06:40AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > +++ b/kernel/user_hooks.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > > > +#include <linux/user_hooks.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +struct user_hooks {
> > > > +       bool hooking;
> > > > +       bool in_user;
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > I really detest using bool in structures.. but that's just me. Also this
> > > really wants a comment as to wtf 'hooking' means. in_user I can just
> > > about guess.
> > 
> > I really don't mind changing that to int. I just like them as 
> > bool because they better describe the purpose of the field.
> > 
> > hooking means that the hooks are set (the TIF flag is set on 
> > the current task and we also handle the exception hooks).
> > 
> > I can call that is_hooking instead? And/or add a comment to 
> > explain the purpose of this.
> 
> Please don't use this horrible naming - use something more 
> technical like struct user_callback and callback::active, ok?

Ok, user callback should be fine. I'll respin with that.