On Fri, May 03, 2024, Wei W Wang wrote: > 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()? Yeah, for sure, I should have explicitly called that out.
