From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752534Ab1AESxj (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 13:53:39 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:59805 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752349Ab1AESxi (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 13:53:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4D24BDD5.5090803@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:52:05 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt CC: Frederic Weisbecker , Jason Baron , 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() References: <2d8c38bd7ca93e162aedb8e7acfc8bdb96d85de2.1294239591.git.jbaron@redhat.com> <20110105171516.GB1692@nowhere> <1294249596.26623.38.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <1294249596.26623.38.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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