Re: [v1][PATCH 1/1] KVM: PPC: disable preemption when using hard_irq_disable()

["tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>]

On 07/16/2013 01:27 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 09:20:00 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> 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?
>
> What is semantically different about that from SOFT_DISABLE_INTS?
>
>> This is close to name hard_irq_disable() :)
>
> Except that one says "soft" and the other says "hard". :-)

Yes, I want to leave as SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE and close to hard_irq_disable() just 
since I think the irq state is always needed to be reconciled when we disable 
soft irq. So maybe we shouldn't necessarily underline to sync the software state 
here as I understand.

But looks you also agree with that name, RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE, Ben mentioned 
previously. So I'd like to turn back :)

>
>> And then remove all DISABLE_INTS as well?
>
> You mean opencode WHATEVER_WE_CALL_IT(r3,r4) everwhere?  Why?
>

OOPS :-P

Tiejun