Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] arm64/efi: move to generic {__,}efi_call_virt

Mark Rutland
2016-04-21T16:58:18Z

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:48:40PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:35:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Now there's a common template for {__,}efi_call_virt, remove the
> > duplicate logic from the arm64 efi code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
> > Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 21 +++++++--------------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h
> > index 8e88a69..f4f71224 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h
> > @@ -14,28 +14,21 @@ extern void efi_init(void);
> >
> > int efi_create_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm, efi_memory_desc_t *md);
> >
> > -#define efi_call_virt(f, ...) \
> > +#define arch_efi_call_virt_setup() \
> > ({ \
> > - efi_##f##_t *__f; \
> > - efi_status_t __s; \
> > - \
> > kernel_neon_begin(); \
> > efi_virtmap_load(); \
> > - __f = efi.systab->runtime->f; \
> > - __s = __f(__VA_ARGS__); \
> > - efi_virtmap_unload(); \
> > - kernel_neon_end(); \
> > - __s; \
> > })
> >
> > -#define __efi_call_virt(f, ...) \
> > +#define arch_efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> > ({ \
> > efi_##f##_t *__f; \
> > - \
> > - kernel_neon_begin(); \
> > - efi_virtmap_load(); \
> > __f = efi.systab->runtime->f; \
> > - __f(__VA_ARGS__); \
> > + __f(args); \
>
> Any reason to change this to a named argument? This patch is hard enough
> to review as it is, given the way the diff has been generated!

That was to enforce consistency across arm/arm64/x86 for this.

It seemed nicer to make them all use a named argument than it did to
make them all use __VA_ARGS__, either of which was nice than each of
them doing something slightly different.

Sorry for the pain that evidently caused!

> Either way:
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>

Cheers!

Mark.