lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> cc: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.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>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:32:39PM +0100, J?rn Engel wrote: > > On Wed, 29 October 2008 18:39:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > 69768 61064 87 __switch_to process_64.c 624 > > > 15557 115251 100 __switch_to process_64.c 594 > > > 15555 115227 100 __switch_to process_64.c 590 > > > > I may be out of school for a while, but that math sure looks odd. > > > > > + if (p->correct) { > > > + percent = p->incorrect * 100; > > > + percent /= p->correct; > > percent /= p->correct + p->incorect; > > And once you do the above fix, I don't think what is below is > necessary any more. :-) Bah! Total brain-fart. Thanks ;-) > > > > + /* No need to see huge numbers */ > > > + if (percent > 100) > > > + percent = 100; > > I would also calculate the percent correct rather than the percent > incorrect, on the general theory that 100% good, 0% bad is easier for > my little brain to understand, but that's just a minor thing... I thought about whether or not to show percent correct or precent incorrect. I chose, incorrect, just because it is easier to spot the trouble makers. You can say, lets allow 25% incorrect, better than saying lets have a minimum of 75%. I think the mind can pick out those that go over a number better than it can see those that are under a number. Thanks, -- Steve -- 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