On Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:27 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, Wei Wang wrote: > > Introduces two new macros, KVM_X86_SC() and KVM_X86_SCC(), to > > streamline the usage of KVM_X86_OPS static calls. The current > > implementation of these calls is verbose and can lead to alignment > > challenges due to the two pairs of parentheses. This makes the code > > susceptible to exceeding the "80 columns per single line of code" > > limit as defined in the coding-style document. The two macros are > > added to improve code readability and maintainability, while adhering to > the coding style guidelines. > > Heh, I've considered something similar on multiple occasionsi. Not because > the verbosity bothers me, but because I often search for exact "word" matches > when looking for function usage and the kvm_x86_ prefix trips me up. Yeah, that's another compelling reason for the improvement. > IIRC, static_call_cond() is essentially dead code, i.e. it's the exact same as > static_call(). I believe there's details buried in a proposed series to remove > it[*]. And to not lead things astray, I verified that invoking a NULL kvm_x86_op > with static_call() does no harm (well, doesn't explode at least). > > So if we add wrapper macros, I would be in favor in removing all > static_call_cond() as a prep patch so that we can have a single macro. Sounds good. Maybe KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL could now also be removed? > kvm_ops_update() already WARNs if a mandatory hook isn't defined, so doing > more checks at runtime wouldn't provide any value. > > As for the name, what about KVM_X86_CALL() instead of KVM_X86_SC()? Two > extra characters, but should make it much more obvious what's going on for > readers that aren't familiar with the infrastructure. I thought the macro definition is quite intuitive and those encountering it for the first time could get familiar with it easily from the definition. Similarly, KVM_X86_CALL() is fine to me, despite the fact that it doesn't explicitly denote "static" calls. > > And I bet we can get away with KVM_PMU_CALL() for the PMU hooks. Yes, this can be covered as well.
