From: Michael Kelley (LINUX) <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:36 AM > > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 > 6:27 PM > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > > > From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 > > 11:07 AM > > > > > > > > On 2/27/23 10:46, Michael Kelley wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c > > > > > index 766ffe3..9f668d2 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c > > > > > @@ -211,6 +211,13 @@ u64 arch_irq_stat_cpu(unsigned int cpu) > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_THRESHOLD > > > > > sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_threshold_count; > > > > > #endif > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HV_CALLBACK_VECTOR > > > > > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_callback_count; > > > > > +#endif > > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > > > > > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_reenlightenment_count; > > > > > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->hyperv_stimer0_count; > > > > > +#endif > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE > > > > > sum += per_cpu(mce_exception_count, cpu); > > > > > sum += per_cpu(mce_poll_count, cpu); > > > > > > > > This seems fine, especially since arch_show_interrupts() has them. But, > > > > what's with the "#if IS_ENABLED" versus the plain #ifdef? Is there some > > > > difference I'm missing? Why not just be consistent with the other code > > > > and use a plain #ifdef for both? > > > > > > I'm following the coding pattern in arch_show_interrupts(), in irq_cpustat_t, > > > and most other places that test CONFIG_HYPERV. Maybe all those existing > > > cases are a mis-application of Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > > Section 21, which prefers "if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV))" over > > > "#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV". "#if IS_ENABLED()" is not the same as > > > "if (IS_ENABLED())". :-) > > > > > > Net, I don't have a strong preference either way. > > > > Using IS_ENABLED() is mandatory because CONFIG_HYPERV is a tri-state, i.e. can > > be a module and thus #define CONFIG_HYPER_MODULE instead of CONFIG_HYPERV. > > Ah, right. Thanks. > x86 maintainers: Any issues with picking up this patch for the 6.4 merge window? Michael
