On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:38 AM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:24:21 -0600 > Keith Busch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:04:58AM -0400, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote: > > > if (trace_io_uring_complete_enabled()) > > > - trace_io_uring_complete(req->ctx, req, cqe); > > > + trace_invoke_io_uring_complete(req->ctx, req, cqe); > > > > Curious, this one doesn't follow that pattern of "if (enabed && cond)" > > that this cover letter said it was addressing, so why doesn't this call > > just drop the 'if' check and go straight to trace_io_uring_complete()? I > > followed this usage to commit a0730c738309a06, which says that the > > You mean 'a0727c738309a06'? As I could not find the above 'a0730c738309a06' > > > compiler was generating code to move args before checking if the trace > > was enabled. That commit was a while ago though, and suggests to remove > > It was only 2023. > > > the check if that problem is solved. Is it still a problem? > > We should check.
I shall leave this patch as is for now. > Which reminds me. There's other places that have that tracepoint_enabled() > in header files that do the above. The C wrapper functions should also > convert the callback to the trace_invoke_<event>() call. > Thanks for pointing this out. I just had a look and its not too much. But I feel it would be better to take it up as a new series. What do you think? Thanks, Vineeth > -- Steve
