On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > Andrew Morton recently suggested having an in-kernel way to profile
> > likely and unlikely macros. This patch achieves that goal.
> 
> Maybe I'm confused, but when I read through the patch, it looks like
> that 'hit' is incremented whenever the condition is true, and 'missed'
> is incremented whenever the condition is false, correct?
> 
> Is that what you intended?  So for profile_unlikely, "missed" is good,
> and "hit" is bad, and for profile_likely, "hit" is good, and "missed"
> is bad.  That seems horribly confusing.
> 
> If that wasn't what you intended, the meaning of "hit" and "missed"
> seems to be highly confusing, either way.  Can we perhaps use some
> other terminology?  Simply using "True" and "False" would be better,
> since there's no possible confusion what the labels mean.

or "correct" and "incorrect"



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/