On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:29:32AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:27:46 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> 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()?
So the problem with preempt_enable_trace() is that we just called a
_notrace(), and while I now know these are two different trace thingies,
I might have forgotten that in a few days.
