Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> + } else {
>>> + trace_printf_key(&trace_fsmonitor, "fsmonitor not enabled");
>>> + }
>>> +
>
> I'd remove the trace statement above as it isn't always
> accurate. fsmonitor could be enabled but just hasn't written/read the
> extension yet.
I agree; when it is not enabled, we shouldn't be paying the penalty,
either. I wonder if tweak_*() function can return early upfront if
we know fsmonitor is not enabled to make it even more obvious.
>>> + if (ignore_fsmonitor)
>>> + trace_printf_key(&trace_fsmonitor, "Ignoring fsmonitor for %s", ce->name);
>>
>> This is the code path I am fairly certain should not be penalized if
>> tracing is disabled.
>
> Definitely agree with the need to remove this tracing as it will get
> called a lot and we don't want to pay the perf penalty.
Yes.
