Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:11:26 -0800 | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | | 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
|  |