[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DS0PR11MB6373EA67C70B8579A194089EDC1F2@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 02:15:38 +0000
From: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Add KVM_PMU_CALL() to simplify
static calls of kvm_pmu_ops
On Friday, May 3, 2024 7:36 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024, Wei Wang wrote:
> > #define KVM_X86_CALL(func) static_call(kvm_x86_##func)
> > +#define KVM_PMU_CALL(func) static_call(kvm_x86_pmu_##func)
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ void kvm_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> >
> > memset(pmu, 0, sizeof(*pmu));
> > - static_call(kvm_x86_pmu_init)(vcpu);
> > + KVM_PMU_CALL(init)(vcpu);
> > kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu);
>
> I usually like macros to use CAPS so that they're clearly macros, but in this case
> I find the code a bit jarring. Essentially, I *want* my to be fooled into thinking
> it's a function call, because that's really what it is.
>
> So rather than all caps, what if we follow function naming style? E.g.
Yep, it looks good to me, and the coding-style doc mentions that "CAPITALIZED
macro names are appreciated but macros resembling functions may be named in
lower case".
To maintain consistency, maybe apply the same lower-case style for KVM_X86_CALL()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists