Re: [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded call sites
Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:28:07 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-sctp,org.freedesktop.lists.amd-gfx,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.io-uring,org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-i2c,org.kernel.vger.linux-input,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-scsi,org.kernel.vger.linux-spi,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026-03-12 11:23, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:12:41 -0400 > Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> if (trace_foo_enabled() && cond) >>> trace_invoke_foo(args); /* calls __do_trace_foo() directly */ >> >> FYI, we have a similar concept in LTTng-UST for userspace >> instrumentation already: >> >> if (lttng_ust_tracepoint_enabled(provider, name)) >> lttng_ust_do_tracepoint(provider, name, ...); >> >> Perhaps it can provide some ideas about API naming. > > I find the word "invoke" sounding more official than "do" ;-) > > Note, Vineeth came up with the naming. I would have done "do" but when I > saw "invoke" I thought it sounded better. It works as long as you don't have a tracing subsystem called "invoke", then you get into identifier clash territory. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. https://www.efficios.com