Re: [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded call sites
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:02:55 -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 Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:54:29 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > emit_trace_foo() > > > __trace_foo() > > this seems like the best approach, IMO. double-underscored variants > are usually used for some specialized/internal version of a function > when we know that some conditions are correct (e.g., lock is already > taken, or something like that). Which fits here: trace_xxx() will > check if tracepoint is enabled, while __trace_xxx() will not check and > just invoke the tracepoint? It's short, it's distinct, and it says "I > know what I am doing". Honestly, I consider double underscore as internal only and not something anyone but the subsystem maintainers use. This, is a normal function where it's just saying: If you have it already enabled, then you can use this. Thus, I don't think it qualifies as a "you know what you are doing". Perhaps: call_trace_foo() ? -- Steve