On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:42:29AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:03:46 +0000,
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That said, I'm going to go with the below, adding 'inline' to
> > kvm_hyp_handle_memory_fault() and using CPP defines to alias the
> > function names:
> >
> > | static inline bool kvm_hyp_handle_memory_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > | u64 *exit_code)
> > | {
> > | if (!__populate_fault_info(vcpu))
> > | return true;
> > |
> > | return false;
> > | }
> > | #define kvm_hyp_handle_iabt_low kvm_hyp_handle_memory_fault
> > | #define kvm_hyp_handle_watchpt_low kvm_hyp_handle_memory_fault
> >
> > I think that's clearer, and it's more alisnged with how we usually alias
> > function names in headers. Other than these two cases, __alias() is only
> > used in C files to create a sesparate exprted symbol, and it's odd to
> > use it in a header anyhow.
> >
> > Marc, please should if you'd prefer otherwise.
>
> Nah, that's fine by me.
>
> My only issue was with marking functions as inline, and yet storing
> pointers to these functions. But it looks like the compiler (GCC 12.2
> in my case) is doing a good job noticing the weird pattern, and
> generating only one function, even if we store multiple pointers.
That's fair -- I'm fairly certain that we do this elsewhere too, but I
can switch to __maybe_unused if we're worried that might bite us in
future?
Mark.
