On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:37:33 +0200 Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 05:57:57PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > That's implementation details, not a general concept that users will > > need to know about. > > Why? > > It is a branch, regardless of which insn is used on which arch - it is > either active and you *branch* to that code or *inactive* and you don't. > So now it is actually what it should've been from the beginning... I just don't like the inconsistency of the initialization and the setting. Either have: DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE() DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE() and static_branch_set_true() static_branch_set_false() or have: DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_ENABLED() DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_DISABLED() and static_branch_enable() static_branch_disable() But having the DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE() and static_branch_enable() is confusing, as enable does not mean "make true"! This may seem as bike shedding, but terminology *is* important, and being inconsistent just makes it more probable to have bugs. -- Steve > > I realize simplifying the terminology around those jump labels/static > branches things comes kinda unnatural now. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
