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

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:49:23AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 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.

Oh, I know!, call them __do_trace_##foo().

/me runs like hell