On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 08:55:05AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > + if (!iter->iomap.length) {
> > > + trace_iomap_iter(iter, ops, _RET_IP_);
> > > + goto begin;
> > > + }
> >
> > This might be a chance to split trace_iomap_iter into two trace points
> > for the initial and following iterations? Or maybe we shouldn't bother.
> >
>
> Hmm.. not sure I see the value in a tracepoint just for the initial
> case, but maybe we should just move trace_iomap_iter() to the top of the
> function? We already have post-lookup tracepoints in iomap_iter_done()
> to show the mappings, and that would remove the duplication. Hm?
Sounds sensible.
