lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs
    On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:09:20PM -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.
    >
    > -hpa
    >

    The naming discussion really stems from the addition of a default true
    branch.

    Originally we had 'static_branch()'. Then, in the first RFC introducing
    the default true branch, I proposed: 'static_branch_def_false', and
    'static_branch_def_true'. Did you like those better?

    I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that
    very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility.

    Thanks,

    -Jason


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-21 21:23    [W:0.035 / U:94.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site