In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kok, Auke writes:
Erez Zadok wrote:
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102
+-
1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c
On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kok, Auke writes:
I've been told several times that adding these is almost always
bogus - either it messes up the CPU branch prediction or the
compiler/CPU just does a lot better at finding the right way
without
On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote:
*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated
probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and
;-)
19:1 = 95:5 = 95% = ratio=0.95 != 20.0 (=20/1)
you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1 ratio).
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Engelhardt writes:
On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote:
*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated
probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and
;-)
19:1 = 95:5 = 95% = ratio=0.95 != 20.0
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
...
Also, Auke, if indeed compilers are [sic] likely to do better than
programmers adding un/likely wrappers, then why do we still support that in
the kernel? (Working for a company tat produces high-quality compilers, you
may know
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +-
1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c b/fs/unionfs/copyup.c
index 23ac4c8..e3c5f15 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c
+++
Erez Zadok wrote:
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +-
1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c b/fs/unionfs/copyup.c
index 23ac4c8..e3c5f15 100644
---
