Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YurA3aSb4GRr4wlW@ZenIV> <CAHk-=wizUgMbZKnOjvyeZT5E+WZM0sV+zS5Qxt84wp=BsRk3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YuruqoGHJONpdZcK@home.goodmis.org>
In-Reply-To: <YuruqoGHJONpdZcK@home.goodmis.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:09:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whJvgykcTnR+BMJNwd+me5wvg+CxjSBeiPYTR1B2g5NpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3 - dcache
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 2:55 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> The original patch years ago use to have:
>
>  preempt_disable_rt()
>
>  preempt_enable_rt()

That may be visually simpler, but I dislike how it's named for some
implementation detail, rather than for the semantic meaning.

Admittedly I think "preempt_enable_under_spinlock()" may be a bit
*too* cumbersome as a name. It does explain what is going on - and
both the implementation and the use end up being fairly clear (and the
non-RT case could have some debug version that actually tests that
preemption has already been disabled).

But it is also a ridiculously long name, no question about that.

I still feel is less cumbersome than having that
"IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)" test that also then pretty much
requires a comment to explain what is going on.

            Linus