linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 01/18] perf/core: Use static_call to optimize perf_guest_info

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <34a668a0606092990326207d2acc5441592756d6.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:42:25 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, 2021-07-02 at 18:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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
> > []
> > > > +	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/

Right, definitely so.

But merely referencing 'coding style' is ambiguous at best.

btw:

ASCII commonly refers to '{' and '}', the curly brackets, to be braces
and '[' and ']', the square brackets, to be brackets.

It might be clearer to use that terminology.

belts and braces, etc...

cheers, Joe

----------------

+Bracket rules
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+Brackets should be omitted only if the statement which follows 'if', 'for',
+'while' etc. is truly a single line::
+
+	if (foo)
+		do_something();
+
+The following is not considered to be a single line statement even
+though C does not require brackets::
+
+	for (i = 0; i < end; i++)
+		if (foo[i])
+			do_something(foo[i]);
+
+Adding brackets around the outer loop enhances the reading flow::
+
+	for (i = 0; i < end; i++) {
+		if (foo[i])
+			do_something(foo[i]);
+	}