Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:18:21 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs |
| |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > Having to take the address gives us type safety - i.e. it will > not be possible to accidentally pass in a non-jump-label key and > get it misinterpreted.
Ingo, stop with the stupid denialism.
NOBODY likes that name. NOBODY. It's wrong. It's stupid. It sounds like a stronger "unlikely()", and it simply IS NOT.
So rename it already.
The "type safety" argument seems bogus too. As far as I can tell, it fails miserably if you test a void pointer for being NULL.
Sure, you can fix that by doing crazy things to the interface, but in the end, nothing changes the fact that "very_unlikely()" as a name sounds like an emphatic version of "unlikely()".
Rename it. Make it clear from the name that it is about these static variables. Everything else seems to be named for that "static_key" thing, so make the testing of it be named that way too, instead of using a bad generic naming scheme that is just confusing.
Linus
| |