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

[Ingo Molnar]

* 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.

See my other mail.

> 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.

too long.

'static branch' or 'static condition' is not a bad concept, if 
people don't find the similarity to 'static' too confusing ;-).

But it is fundamentally mixing execution and *data type* and it 
is not conveying the build time bias properly.

So the best high level naming would be something like:

	struct static_condition static_flag = STATIC_COND_FALSE;


	if (very_unlikely(&static_flag)) {
		...
	}

	...

	static_cond_inc(&static_flag);
	...
	static_cond_dec(&static_flag);


See how *both* the build time bias and the cost of a state 
transition is properly conveyed?

I suggested something like this to Jason in the off-list 
discusion and it's not fully implemented yet. Let me whip up a 
test branch [pun and potential confusion unintended] that shows 
it.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/