* Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/11/17 10:40, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> Plus add a default empty function (which hypervisors can override). This avoids > >>> all the hidden conditions and wrappery. > >> > >> Hmm, x86_hyper is just a pointer being NULL on bare metal. So we would > >> have to add a pre-filled struct with dummy functions and in case a > >> hypervisor is detected we'd need to copy all non-NULL pointers of the > >> hypervisor specific struct to the pre-filled one. > > > > Ok, I missed that detail - but yeah, since this is mostly about boot code, > > where readability is king, I still think it would be an overall improvement. > > > > This is the pattern we are trying to use with x86_platform ops for example, and > > doing: > > > > git grep -w x86_platform arch/x86 > > > > gives a pretty clear idea about how it's used - while if it was all within > > wrappers it would be a lot more difficult to discover all the callsites. > > > > Admittedly it's not done totally consistently: > > > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/probe_32.c: if (x86_platform.apic_post_init) > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/probe_64.c: if (x86_platform.apic_post_init) > > arch/x86/kernel/ebda.c: if (!x86_platform.legacy.reserve_bios_regions) > > arch/x86/kernel/platform-quirks.c: if (x86_platform.set_legacy_features) > > arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_mrfld_rtc.c: if (!x86_platform.legacy.rtc) > > > > ... but the _idea_ behind it is consistent ;-) > > > >> In case there are no objections I can add a patch to modify the current > >> way x86_hyper is used to the pre-filled variant. > > > > Yeah, sounds good to me! > > Okay. With you mentioning x86_platform: should I make x86_hyper a member > of x86_platform (e.g. x86_platform.hyper.) ? > > I think this would fit quite nice. Yeah, seems like a good idea! Thanks, Ingo
