Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups +
docs
[Posted February 29, 2012 by corbet]
| From: |
| Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
| To: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups +
docs |
| Date: |
| Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:04:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20120224080423.GA814@elte.hu> |
| Cc: |
| Paul Mackerras <paulus-AT-samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-zytor.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron-AT-redhat.com>, a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl,
mathieu.desnoyers-AT-efficios.com, davem-AT-davemloft.net,
ddaney.cavm-AT-gmail.com, akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Seriously, I don't understand why you don't just use the
> obvious name. The data structure is named "static_key". The
> things that change it are named "static_key_inc()" or
> something. So a name like "static_key_true()" is simply
> *better*, isn't it?
Yes, you are right, in hindsight it's indeed obviously and
trivially better :-/
> It's not just about less confusion, it's actually about just
> having consistent naming.
Okay. I sent out the slightly reworked patch that gets rid of
this confusion and makes it all consistent.
Thanks,
Ingo
