Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups+ docs

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/21/2012 12:21 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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()?
> 

static_true() and static_false() seem good.

	-hpa

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