From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [v1][PATCH 1/1] KVM: PPC: disable preemption when using hard_irq_disable()
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:20:00 +0800
Message-ID: <51E35C50.6050901@windriver.com>
References: <1373651433.8183.276@snotra> <1373670311.19894.213.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1373670311.19894.213.camel@pasglop>
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 07/13/2013 07:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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 :-)
>

What about SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE? This is close to name hard_irq_disable() :) And 
then remove all DISABLE_INTS as well?

Tiejun