From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: Re: [PATCH 01/15] tracepoint: Add trace_invoke_##name() API
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:04:52 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <review-patch1-20260312111255.7925b4e2@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260312111255.7925b4e2@gandalf.local.home>
Patch Review
The core API patch. Three changes to `include/linux/tracepoint.h`:
1. **`__DECLARE_TRACE`** — adds `trace_invoke_##name()` after `trace_##name()`:
```c
static inline void trace_invoke_##name(proto)
{
__do_trace_##name(args);
}
```
This correctly skips the `static_branch_unlikely()` but as noted above, it also **omits the LOCKDEP assertion**. The commit message claims it "retains the LOCKDEP RCU-watching assertion" which is inaccurate.
2. **`__DECLARE_TRACE_SYSCALL`** — same pattern but includes `might_fault()`:
```c
static inline void trace_invoke_##name(proto)
{
might_fault();
__do_trace_##name(args);
}
```
This correctly preserves the `might_fault()` check. Same LOCKDEP concern applies here too.
3. **`!TRACEPOINTS_ENABLED` stub** — adds an empty inline:
```c
static inline void trace_invoke_##name(proto)
{ }
```
Correct — compiles out cleanly when tracepoints are disabled.
**Minor nit**: The `trace_invoke_` naming prefix is somewhat verbose. An alternative like `trace_do_` was presumably considered and rejected, but the chosen name is fine — it's explicit about what it does.
---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-13 4:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-12 15:04 [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded call sites Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 01/15] tracepoint: Add trace_invoke_##name() API Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:39 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-12 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-12 16:05 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-13 4:04 ` Claude Code Review Bot [this message]
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 05/15] accel/habanalabs: Use trace_invoke_##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-13 4:04 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 08/15] dma-buf: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-13 4:04 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 10/15] drm: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-13 4:04 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-12 15:12 ` [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded " Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:49 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-12 15:57 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 16:08 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
[not found] ` <CAEf4BzbnfyhCqp0ne=2gRnVxp-mdGmuZwDeFRyhRYH+eDcz2-w@mail.gmail.com>
2026-03-12 17:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-13 4:04 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=review-patch1-20260312111255.7925b4e2@gandalf.local.home \
--to=claude-review@example.com \
--cc=dri-devel-reviews@example.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox