linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:21:59 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	mingo@...e.hu, 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, 2012-02-21 at 12:09 -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.

I agree with Peter.

What about static_branch_true() and static_branch_false().

Or remove the "_branch" part and have static_true() and static_false()?

-- 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/