[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200324165454.GT20696@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:54:54 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3 14/17] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:14:03AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:25 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Extend the static_call infrastructure to optimize the following common
> > pattern:
> >
> > if (func_ptr)
> > func_ptr(args...)
>
> Is there any reason why this shouldn't be the default static call pattern?
>
> IOW, do we need the special "cond" versions at all? Couldn't we just
> say that this is how static calls fundamentally work - if the function
> is NULL, they are nops?
That doesn't work for functions that have a return value ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists