On 23/03/20 17:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Sounds cool! (not sure that with only two implementations people won't > call it 'over-engineered' but cool). Yes, something like #define KVM_X86_OP(name) .name = vmx_##name (svm_##name for svm.c) and then KVM_X86_OP(check_nested_events) etc. > My personal wish would just be that > function names in function implementations are not auto-generated so > e.g. a simple 'git grep vmx_hardware_setup' works Yes, absolutely; the function names would still be written by hand. Paolo > but the way how we > fill vmx_x86_ops in can be macroed I guess.
