Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:49:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > OK, I'm fine with changing the terminology. v2 will do:
> > 
> >   s/hit/True/
> >   s/missed/False/
> > 
> > Fine with you?
> 
> I'm OK with either that, or with Arjan's suggestion of "Correct" and
> "Incorrect" --- although that would changing a line in the definition
> of #define unlikely(x):
> 
>                     ftrace_likely_update(&______f, !______r);
> 
> Either "True" / "False" or "Correct" / "Incorrect" has the advantage
> of being unambiguous.  "Correct" / "Incorrect" has the advantage that
> people don't have to think about the fact that for
> /proc/profile_unlikely, high numbers of "False" is a good thing, where
> as for /proc/profile_likely, high numbers of "True" is a good thing.
> With "Correct" / "Incorrect" it's easier to undersatnd that high
> numbers of "Correct" is good.   
> 
> So I can see why Arjan suggested Correct/Incorrect, although I can
> live with either.

I'm almost done with v2. Using Arjan's version (Correct/Incorrect) was 
actually a trivial change.

-- Steve