Message-ID: <1329855719.25686.67.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups
 + docs
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, mingo@elte.hu,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:21:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4F43F9F0.4000605@zytor.com>
References: <cover.1329851692.git.jbaron@redhat.com>
	 <4F43F9F0.4000605@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 27

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


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/