On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:27:46 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> So no real objection to the patch except this naming.
>
> It doesn't 'check', it does preempt-latency tracing. So could we rename
> this to something like:
>
> preempt_{dis,en}able_latency()
>
> or somesuch?
What about:
preempt_enable_trace() or preempt_enable_trace_test()?
-- Steve
