Re: [patch part-II V2 09/13] x86/entry/common: Split hardirq tracing into lockdep and ftrace parts

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:20:45 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Tell the tracer about the irq state as well before enabling
> > +	 * interrupts.
> > +	 */
> > +	__trace_hardirqs_off();  
> 
> I wonder if those "__" variants should be named something else to
> denote better the difference between __trace_hardirqs_{on,off} and
> trace_hardirqs_{on,off}. Latter does the _rcuidle variant and lockdep
> annotation but
> 
> 	trace_hardirqs_{on,off}_rcuidle_lockdep()
> 
> sounds yuck.
> 
> Maybe lockdep_trace_hardirqs_{on,off}()...
> 
> Blergh, I can't think of a good name ATM.

Kernel developers are not good at naming ;-) This is one of the original
pieces of code that came in with the original addition of tracing, where we
had the "Ingo notation" of something like:

  trace() {
	[..]
	_trace();
	[..]
  }

  _trace() {
	[..]
	__trace();
	[..]
  }

  __trace() {
	[..]
	___trace();
	[..]
  }

  ___trace() {
	[..]
	____trace();
	[..]
  }

  ____trace() {
	[..]
	_____trace();
	[..]
  }

  _____trace() {
	[..]
  }

-- Steve