[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YN88rE+cxb7HrEtI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:19:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, seanjc@...gle.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
weijiang.yang@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com, eranian@...gle.com,
liuxiangdong5@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, like.xu.linux@...il.com,
Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 01/18] perf/core: Use static_call to optimize
perf_guest_info_callbacks
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 13:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:42:49PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> []
> > > @@ -90,6 +90,27 @@ DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(x86_pmu_pebs_aliases, *x86_pmu.pebs_aliases);
> > > */
> > > DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_pmu_guest_get_msrs, *x86_pmu.guest_get_msrs);
> > >
> > >
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_state, *(perf_guest_cbs->state));
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_get_ip, *(perf_guest_cbs->get_ip));
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(x86_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr, *(perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr));
> > > +
> > > +void arch_perf_update_guest_cbs(void)
> > > +{
> > > + static_call_update(x86_guest_state, (void *)&__static_call_return0);
> > > + static_call_update(x86_guest_get_ip, (void *)&__static_call_return0);
> > > + static_call_update(x86_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr, (void *)&__static_call_return0);
> > > +
> > > + if (perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->state)
> > > + static_call_update(x86_guest_state, perf_guest_cbs->state);
> > > +
> > > + if (perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->get_ip)
> > > + static_call_update(x86_guest_get_ip, perf_guest_cbs->get_ip);
> > > +
> > > + if (perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr)
> > > + static_call_update(x86_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr,
> > > + perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr);
> > > +}
> >
> > Coding style wants { } on that last if().
>
> That's just your personal preference.
As a maintainer, those carry weight, also that's tip rules:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181107171149.165693799@linutronix.de/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists