Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Add KVM_PMU_CALL() to simplify static calls of kvm_pmu_ops

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

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.