[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F44087E.3030701@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:11:26 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 02/21/2012 12:21 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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()?
>
static_true() and static_false() seem good.
-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