Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function_call()ers

[Alexander Shishkin]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:57:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:42:01PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> > > +void ___perf_event_disable(void *info)
>> > 
>> > Only maybe change these to __perf_event_disable_locked() or something
>> > visually distinctive from the 'active' callback?
>> 
>> Yeah, I ran out of naming-foo and punted. I'll give it another go
>> tomorrow.
>
> How about something like so?
>
> Its a bit 'weird' but they're already long function names and adding
> things like _locked to it makes them really rather unwieldy.

That aside, why I brought it up in the first place is because the two
functions are asymmetric: one is called with irqs disabled and the
other -- with ctx::lock held (and not because I'm into bikeshedding or
anything like that). Looking at the pair of them sets off my "that's not
right" trigger and sends me to the event_function_call()
implementation. So in that sense, prepending an extra underscore kind of
made sense. Maybe __perf_remove_from_context_{on,off}()?

Regards,
--
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/