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

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:49 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
<[email protected]> 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.
>
> do_trace_foo()
> call_trace_foo()

This was the initial idea, but it had conflict in the existing source:
call_trace_sched_update_nr_running. do_trace_##name also had
collisions when I checked. So, went with trace_invoke_##name. Did not
check rest of the suggestions here though.

Thanks,
Vineeth

> emit_trace_foo()
> __trace_foo()
> invoke_trace_foo()
> dispatch_trace_foo()
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> https://www.efficios.com