On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 12:02 PM Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-03-17 12:00, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 10:02:32 -0400 > > Vineeth Remanan Pillai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> Perhaps: call_trace_foo() ? > >>> > >> call_trace_foo has one collision with the tracepoint > >> sched_update_nr_running and a function > >> call_trace_sched_update_nr_running. I had considered this and later > >> moved to trace_invoke_foo() because of the collision. But I can rename > >> call_trace_sched_update_nr_running to something else if call_trace_foo > >> is the general consensus. > > > > OK, then lets go with: trace_call__foo() > > > > The double underscore should prevent any name collisions. > > > > Does anyone have an objections? > I'm OK with it. > Great thanks! I shall send a v2 with s/trace_invoke_foo/trace_call__foo/ soon.
Thanks, Vineeth
