Hi Steven, ---- On Thu, 14 May 2026 01:57:41 +0800 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote --- > On Mon, 11 May 2026 16:43:01 +0800 > Li Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > @@ -1346,8 +1383,15 @@ static int ext4_fc_perform_commit(journal_t > > *journal) > > } > > ext4_fc_unlock(sb, alloc_ctx); > > > > - ret = ext4_fc_snapshot_inodes(journal, inodes, inodes_size); > > + ret = ext4_fc_snapshot_inodes(journal, inodes, inodes_size, > > + &snap_inodes, &snap_ranges, &snap_err); > > jbd2_journal_unlock_updates(journal); > > + if (trace_ext4_fc_lock_updates_enabled()) { > > + locked_ns = ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), lock_start)); > > + trace_ext4_fc_lock_updates(sb, commit_tid, locked_ns, > > + snap_inodes, snap_ranges, ret, > > + snap_err); > > Please change this to: > > trace_call__ext4_fc_lock_updates(...) > > As the "trace_ext4_fc_lock_updates_enabled()" already has the static > branch. No need to do it twice anymore. 7.1 introduced the > "trace_call__foo()" that will do a direct call to the tracepoints > registered, without the need for another static branch.
Thanks, will do it. Regards, Li
