Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:20:19 -0500 | From | Jason Baron <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |