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
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:20 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>
> > I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that
> > very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility.
>
> The problem comes from what Peter said. They are too similar to
> "likely()" and "unlikely()", and can become confusing.
>
> Maybe "static_likely()" and "static_unlikely()" as the word "static" can
> imply something strange about these. Or perhaps a "const_likely()"?

My 2 cents:

static_likely()/static_unlikely() seems to be the less strange
construct names I've seen fly so far. ;-) And they seem to convey the
semantic of static branches and branch "hint" quite well.

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> Maybe "dynamic_branch_true()" and "dynamic_branch_false()". This may be
> the most descriptive.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-21 22:15    [W:0.121 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site