Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:06:45 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2 6/8] jump_label: Add a new static_key interface |
| |
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:37:33 +0200 Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 05:57:57PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > That's implementation details, not a general concept that users will > > need to know about. > > Why? > > It is a branch, regardless of which insn is used on which arch - it is > either active and you *branch* to that code or *inactive* and you don't. > So now it is actually what it should've been from the beginning...
I just don't like the inconsistency of the initialization and the setting.
Either have:
DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE() DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE()
and
static_branch_set_true() static_branch_set_false()
or have:
DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_ENABLED() DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_DISABLED()
and
static_branch_enable() static_branch_disable()
But having the DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE() and static_branch_enable() is confusing, as enable does not mean "make true"!
This may seem as bike shedding, but terminology *is* important, and being inconsistent just makes it more probable to have bugs.
-- Steve
> > I realize simplifying the terminology around those jump labels/static > branches things comes kinda unnatural now. >
| |