[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, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400
Theodore Tso <> 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,

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-28 15:51    [W:0.125 / U:6.160 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site