[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120221202019.GB2381@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:20:19 -0500
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...e.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, davem@...emloft.net,
ddaney.cavm@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups +
docs
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:09:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 12:02 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Renames 'static_branch()' -> very_unlikely(), hopefully, to be more intuitive
> > as to what jump labels is about. I'm also introducing 'very_likely()', as
> > the analogue to very_unlikely(). Patch is against the -tip perf branch.
> >
>
> Erk... I'm not happy about this. very_unlikely() makes it sound like it
> operates like unlikely(), which really is not the case. There is a huge
> difference in mechanism here as well as usage.
>
> -hpa
>
The naming discussion really stems from the addition of a default true
branch.
Originally we had 'static_branch()'. Then, in the first RFC introducing
the default true branch, I proposed: 'static_branch_def_false', and
'static_branch_def_true'. Did you like those better?
I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that
very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility.
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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