[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120221211145.GA15210@Krystal>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:11:45 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...e.hu, 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
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:20 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>
> > I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that
> > very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility.
>
> The problem comes from what Peter said. They are too similar to
> "likely()" and "unlikely()", and can become confusing.
>
> Maybe "static_likely()" and "static_unlikely()" as the word "static" can
> imply something strange about these. Or perhaps a "const_likely()"?
My 2 cents:
static_likely()/static_unlikely() seems to be the less strange
construct names I've seen fly so far. ;-) And they seem to convey the
semantic of static branches and branch "hint" quite well.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Maybe "dynamic_branch_true()" and "dynamic_branch_false()". This may be
> the most descriptive.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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