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

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) 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()"?

My 2 cents:

static_likely()/static_unlikely() seems to be the less strange
construct names I've seen fly so far. ;-) And they seem to convey the
semantic of static branches and branch "hint" quite well.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Maybe "dynamic_branch_true()" and "dynamic_branch_false()". This may be
> the most descriptive.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/