On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:54:00 +0000
Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Possibly an _unchecked or something? Honestly the suggestion someone
> had for _do seemed OK to me. Part of it is that I wouldn't think of
> tracepoints as being something that I'd call.
The "__do_trace.." is an internal function I don't want to expose.
I'm thinking of: call_trace_foo(), as that should be pretty obvious to what
it is.
I want to avoid the do_trace_foo() because that's usually the name of the
wrapper code that is done in header files. Where the header calls:
do_trace_foo()
and the C file has:
void do_trace_foo(..)
{
trace_foo(..);
}
Which could be:
void do_trace_foo(..)
{
call_trace(..);
}
And remove the static branch there.
-- Steve