Re: [PATCH 13/15] spi: Use trace_invoke_##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:54:00 +0000
Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> 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