[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120224091103.GC814@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:11:03 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, davem@...emloft.net,
ddaney.cavm@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups +
docs
* Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com> wrote:
> So, we could get rid of the '&' with something as simple as:
>
> #define very_unlikely(key) __very_unlikely(&key)
>
> However, it does seem potentially more error prone, b/c if
> 'key' is passed to a function, and they we do the
> very_unlikely() we end up with the address parameter (due to
> pass by value). That said, it doesn't look like anybody is
> using very_unlikely() in that manner in the tree, and we could
> document the usage.
>
> In any case, I did the conversion, to see what it would look
> like, if anybody is interested:
I agree that it's still error-prone - it also departs from how
we typically use C APIs in the kernel. With the static_key_*()
naming there's no desire to make it work like unlikely() anymore
and there's no need to pass in the object by value - passing by
reference is fine.
So I don't think we need this.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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