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 <[email protected]> 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
