[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220315080814.sqfhamts5tekhxlj@gator>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:08:14 +0100
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To: Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 000/105] KVM: selftests: Overhaul APIs, purge VCPU_ID
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:56:53PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
>
> I think it may make more sense to only define optional functions as
> weak and let the compiler do the screaming for the required ones. Only
> discovering that functions are missing at runtime could be annoying if
> you're cross-compiling and running on a separate host with a different
> architecture.
>
Ah, indeed, no reason to push the lack of required arch functions to
runtime detection, compile time is much better. And, in those cases,
the _arch_ naming will also provide a nice hint that one must implement
it in arch specific code.
Thanks,
drew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists