[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D24BDD5.5090803@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:52:05 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, avi@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, sam@...nborg.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch()
On 01/05/2011 09:46 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:15 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:43:12AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/jump_label.h b/include/linux/jump_label.h
>>> index 152f7de..0ad9c2e 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/jump_label.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/jump_label.h
>>> @@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ struct module;
>>>
>>> #ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
>>>
>>> +static __always_inline bool static_branch(struct jump_label_key *key)
>>> +{
>>> + return __static_branch(key);
>>
>> Not very important, but __static_branch() would be more self-explained
>> if it was called arch_static_branch().
>
> I disagree, I think it is very important ;-)
>
> Yes, the kernel has been moving to adding "arch_" to functions that are
> implemented dependently by different archs. Please change this to
> "arch_static_branch()".
>
Indeed. This hugely simplifies knowing where to look and whose
responsibility it is.
-hpa
--
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