On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:23 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 07 May 2024 21:31:00 +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > This patchset introduces the kvm_x86_call() and kvm_pmu_call() macros to > > > streamline the usage of static calls of kvm_x86_ops and kvm_pmu_ops. The > > > current static_call() usage is a bit verbose and can lead to code > > > alignment challenges, and the addition of kvm_x86_ prefix to hooks at the > > > static_call() sites hinders code readability and navigation. The use of > > > static_call_cond() is essentially the same as static_call() on x86, so it > > > is replaced by static_call() to simplify the code. The changes have gone > > > through my tests (guest launch, a few vPMU tests, live migration tests) > > > without an issue. > > > > > > [...] > > > > Applied to kvm-x86 static_calls. I may or may not rebase these commits > > depending on what all gets queued for 6.10. There are already three conflicts > > that I know of, but they aren't _that_ annoying. Yet. :-) > > I think it's best if we apply them directly (i.e. not through a pull > request), on top of everything else in 6.11. Works for me. I'll maintain the branch so that the code stays in -next, and so that patches that are destined for 6.12+ are built on the new world, and then post the rebased patches when the time comes.
