Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:36:03 -0500 |
| |
The bike shed is getting really dark.
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 09:20 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > [...] > One possible naming that might be a good fit: > > - read_always_likely() > - read_always_unlikely() > - read_always_branch() > > I think it is important to convey both that it is expected to be always > read, pretty much never updated, and the bias, or absence of bias.
That actually looks even more confusing. "read_always"? What the hell is that?
> > I also _like_ to have a relatively long name here, because the update > cost is so high that someone should really think before using this > facility. In my opinion, it's not "just" a stronger likely/unlikely.
Then make it what it is (with a long name...)
if (jump_label_likely())
if (jump_label_unlikely())
That's probably the least confusing of the names. And for the cases we don't care:
if (jump_label_branch())
The above is the most descriptive and I would say the least confusing. Someone on IRC said that they wish it had jump_label in the name. As they see there's a "CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL" it tells us where those jump labels are used.
Need to go and knock down the bike shed now.
-- Steve
| |