From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752345AbbLKSAc (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:00:32 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:52877 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751404AbbLKSAa (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:00:30 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Christophe JAILLET Subject: Re: Source code review around jump label usage Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 19:00:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: aorleans-552-1-100-129.w92-140.abo.wanadoo.fr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 In-Reply-To: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 151211-2, 11/12/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 11/12/2015 13:08, SF Markus Elfring a écrit : > How does the text length distribution look like for the used jump targets? > > ╔════════╤═══════════╗ > ║ length │ incidence ║ > ╠════════╪═══════════╣ > ║ 1 │ 2 ║ > ║ 2 │ 29 ║ > ║ 3 │ 10640 ║ > ║ 4 │ 3564 ║ > ║ 5 │ 1714 ║ > ║ 6 │ 1162 ║ > ║ 7 │ 1245 ║ > ║ 8 │ 881 ║ > ║ 9 │ 787 ║ > ║ 10 │ 1252 ║ > ║ … │ … ║ > ║ 35 │ 4 ║ > ║ 36 │ 1 ║ > ║ 37 │ 2 ║ > ║ 38 │ 1 ║ > ║ 39 │ 1 ║ > ╚════════╧═══════════╝ > Maybe having a look at the 1 or 2 chars long labels would make sense. They are likely to be too short for being of any use. IMHO, too long labels may also reduce readability. Best regards, CJ