linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Add KVM_PMU_CALL() to simplify static calls of kvm_pmu

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]

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()?