[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:0.020 / U:48.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site