Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:21:59 -0500 |
| |
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()?
-- Steve
| |