From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [v1][PATCH 1/1] KVM: PPC: disable preemption when using
 hard_irq_disable()
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:05:11 +1000
Message-ID: <1373670311.19894.213.camel@pasglop>
References: <1373651433.8183.276@snotra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	"<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"<kvm@vger.kernel.org> list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1373651433.8183.276@snotra>
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:50 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 
> [1] SOFT_DISABLE_INTS seems an odd name for something that updates the  
> software state to be consistent with interrupts being *hard* disabled.   
> I can sort of see the logic in it, but it's confusing when first  
> encountered.  From the name it looks like all it would do is set  
> soft_enabled to 1.

It's indeed odd. Also worse when we use DISABLE_INTS which is just a
macro on top of SOFT_DISABLE_INTS :-)

I've been wanting to change the macro name for a while now and never
got to it. Patch welcome :-)

Cheers,
Ben.