Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:51:39 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations |
| |
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400 > Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> 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"
This means that the code will need to be different for both. Or at least a way to differentiate between the two. Not that hard, but I wanted to make the code as trivial as possible.
-- Steve
| |