On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 9:15 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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()

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".

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

Reply via email to