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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:25:14PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:

> 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}()?

You are quite right, and I think I've found more problems because of
this. Let me prod at this some more.

--
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/