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

Wang, Wei W
2024-05-03T02:15:59Z

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()?