Re: [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded call sites

On 2026-03-12 11:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:28:07 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> True. Perhaps we should do the double underscore trick.
> 
> Instead of:  trace_invoke_foo()
> 
> use:  trace_invoke__foo()
> 
> 
> Which will make it more visible to what the trace event is.
> 
> Hmm, we probably should have used: trace__foo() for all tracepoints, as
> there's still functions that are called trace_foo() that are not
> tracepoints :-p

One certain way to eliminate identifier clash would be to go for a
prefix to "trace_", e.g.

do_trace_foo()
call_trace_foo()
emit_trace_foo()
__trace_foo()
invoke_trace_foo()
dispatch_trace_foo()

Thanks,

Mathieu



-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com