Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:48:16 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations |
| |
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Andrew Morton recently suggested having an in-kernel way to profile > > likely and unlikely macros. This patch achieves that goal. > > Maybe I'm confused, but when I read through the patch, it looks like > that 'hit' is incremented whenever the condition is true, and 'missed' > is incremented whenever the condition is false, correct? > > Is that what you intended? So for profile_unlikely, "missed" is good, > and "hit" is bad, and for profile_likely, "hit" is good, and "missed" > is bad. That seems horribly confusing. > > If that wasn't what you intended, the meaning of "hit" and "missed" > seems to be highly confusing, either way. Can we perhaps use some > other terminology? Simply using "True" and "False" would be better, > since there's no possible confusion what the labels mean.
or "correct" and "incorrect"
-- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |