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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/21/2012 12:39 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:20 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> 
>> I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that
>> very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility.
> 
> The problem comes from what Peter said. They are too similar to
> "likely()" and "unlikely()", and can become confusing.
> 
> Maybe "static_likely()" and "static_unlikely()" as the word "static" can
> imply something strange about these. Or perhaps a "const_likely()"?
> 
> Maybe "dynamic_branch_true()" and "dynamic_branch_false()". This may be
> the most descriptive.
> 

I thought about this some more, and the very_[un]likely() naming is even
worse than I originally thought: the jump label stuff isn't about the
bias level, but rather if a static decision (on the order or once per
boot) can be made to go one way or the other.

	-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/