Re: [PATCH 1/5] code_domain: New code domain tracking susbsystem

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:31:44PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:09:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 21:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Create a new subsystem that handles the probing on kernel 
> > > > boundaries to keep track of the transitions between code 
> > > > domains with two basic initial domains: user or kernel.
> > > 
> > > To do a bit more bike shed painting, I'd call it "context 
> > > tracking" - user mode, kernel mode (guest mode, etc.).
> > > 
> > > The term 'code domain' would bring up blank stares from most 
> > > kernel developers, me thinks.
> > 
> > Heh, that would be a second new term I heard this week for context.
> > Earlier, I noticed that Paul McKenney called it 'levels'. So now there's
> > four names:
> > 
> > user/kernel context
> > user/kernel state
> > user/kernel level
> > user/kernel domain
> > 
> > And we could probably add a fifth:
> > 
> > user/kernel mode
> 
> Plus:
> 
> user/kernel space
> 
> > ;-)
> 
> Then there is "supervisor", "system", "privileged", and who knows what
> all else for "kernel".  And "application" and "problem" and probably
> others for "user".

Hehe.

Ok I agree that domain already has a biased meaning in the kernel.

So I'm going to respin with code_context_tracking.

If anybody oppose, please raise your hand.