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
