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

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

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.

							- Ted