From: Hua Zhong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:25:39 -0700
> Hi,
>
> I am developing a profiling tool to check if likely/unlikely usages are wise.
> I find that the following one is always a miss:
>
> # Hit# miss Function:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ! 0 50505 tcp_tr
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:16:35 -0700
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
> "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:01:49 -0700
> >
> > > > # Hit# mis
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:01:49 -0700
>
> > > # Hit# miss Function:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ! 0 50505 tcp_transmit_skb():net/ipv4/[EMAIL PROTE
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:01:49 -0700
> > # Hit# miss Function:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ! 0 50505 tcp_transmit_skb():net/ipv4/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> How about just taking off the likely/unlikely in this case.
Why remove it when we'l
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:25:39 -0700
Hua Zhong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am developing a profiling tool to check if likely/unlikely usages are wise.
> I find that the following one is always a miss:
>
> # Hit# miss Function:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ! 0 50505 tcp_tran
Hua Zhong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am developing a profiling tool to check if likely/unlikely usages are wise.
> I find that the following one is always a miss:
>
> # Hit# miss Function:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ! 0 50505 tcp_transmit_skb():net/ipv4/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
