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

On 2026-03-12 11:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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

So s/__do_trace_/do_trace_/g and call it a day ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

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