[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220317224831.ci7tb4lasg3xlgvr@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 01:48:31 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 15/30] x86/boot: Port I/O: allow to hook up alternative
helpers
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 01:23:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/17/22 13:20, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > You keep the preprocessor away from things like
> >
> > foo.inb = bar;
> >
> > with:
> >
> > #define inb(x) pio_ops.inb(x)
>
> ... and I spotted my nonsense just as I hit send.
>
> You could do that ^^. But you'd need to rename the 'inb' op like:
>
> struct port_io_ops {
> u8 (*f_inb)(u16 port);
> ...
> };
>
> so that you do:
>
> #define inb(x) pio_ops.f_inb(x)
>
> But, remember when I said I hate playing #define tricks? ;) This is one
> reason why.
But the define tricks are unrelated to the linker issue. The issue pops up
after you get past the preprocessor tricks.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists