[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081028182952.GB10862@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:29:52 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:49:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> OK, I'm fine with changing the terminology. v2 will do:
>
> s/hit/True/
> s/missed/False/
>
> Fine with you?
I'm OK with either that, or with Arjan's suggestion of "Correct" and
"Incorrect" --- although that would changing a line in the definition
of #define unlikely(x):
ftrace_likely_update(&______f, !______r);
Either "True" / "False" or "Correct" / "Incorrect" has the advantage
of being unambiguous. "Correct" / "Incorrect" has the advantage that
people don't have to think about the fact that for
/proc/profile_unlikely, high numbers of "False" is a good thing, where
as for /proc/profile_likely, high numbers of "True" is a good thing.
With "Correct" / "Incorrect" it's easier to undersatnd that high
numbers of "Correct" is good.
So I can see why Arjan suggested Correct/Incorrect, although I can
live with either.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists