[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:49:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> OK, I'm fine with changing the terminology. v2 will do:
> s/hit/True/
> s/missed/False/
> Fine with you?

I'm OK with either that, or with Arjan's suggestion of "Correct" and
"Incorrect" --- although that would changing a line in the definition
of #define unlikely(x):

ftrace_likely_update(&______f, !______r);

Either "True" / "False" or "Correct" / "Incorrect" has the advantage
of being unambiguous. "Correct" / "Incorrect" has the advantage that
people don't have to think about the fact that for
/proc/profile_unlikely, high numbers of "False" is a good thing, where
as for /proc/profile_likely, high numbers of "True" is a good thing.
With "Correct" / "Incorrect" it's easier to undersatnd that high
numbers of "Correct" is good.

So I can see why Arjan suggested Correct/Incorrect, although I can
live with either.

- Ted

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-28 19:35    [W:0.065 / U:1.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site