From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752962Ab1AEVU1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:20:27 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64274 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248Ab1AEVU0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:20:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:19:45 -0500 From: Jason Baron To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Steven Rostedt , Frederic Weisbecker , peterz@infradead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, andi@firstfloor.org, roland@redhat.com, rth@redhat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, avi@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, sam@ravnborg.org, ddaney@caviumnetworks.com, michael@ellerman.id.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch() Message-ID: <20110105211944.GG2896@redhat.com> References: <2d8c38bd7ca93e162aedb8e7acfc8bdb96d85de2.1294239591.git.jbaron@redhat.com> <20110105171516.GB1692@nowhere> <1294249596.26623.38.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <4D24BDD5.5090803@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D24BDD5.5090803@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:52:05AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/05/2011 09:46 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:15 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:43:12AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/jump_label.h b/include/linux/jump_label.h > >>> index 152f7de..0ad9c2e 100644 > >>> --- a/include/linux/jump_label.h > >>> +++ b/include/linux/jump_label.h > >>> @@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ struct module; > >>> > >>> #ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL > >>> > >>> +static __always_inline bool static_branch(struct jump_label_key *key) > >>> +{ > >>> + return __static_branch(key); > >> > >> Not very important, but __static_branch() would be more self-explained > >> if it was called arch_static_branch(). > > > > I disagree, I think it is very important ;-) > > > > Yes, the kernel has been moving to adding "arch_" to functions that are > > implemented dependently by different archs. Please change this to > > "arch_static_branch()". > > > > Indeed. This hugely simplifies knowing where to look and whose > responsibility it is. > > -hpa agreed. updated. thanks, -Jason