From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:17:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160512081739.GA25826@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8Z0faffrN8Jnz9fQPkyn6K69cFaRD348w+m_Lv4Jgynw@mail.gmail.com>
* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 12 May 2016 at 08:46, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> >> +({ \
> >> + efi_status_t __s; \
> >> + unsigned long flags; \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> >> + local_save_flags(flags); \
> >> + __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> >> + efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> >> + __s; \
> >> +})
> >> +
> >> +#define __efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> >> +({ \
> >> + unsigned long flags; \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> >> + local_save_flags(flags); \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> >> + efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> >> +})
> >> +
> >> +#define uv_call_virt(f, args...) \
> >> +({ \
> >> + efi_status_t __s; \
> >> + unsigned long flags; \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> >> + local_save_flags(flags); \
> >> + __s = uv_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> >> + efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> >> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> >> + __s; \
> >> +})
> >
> > Btw., a very (very!) small stylistic nit that caught my eyes, and I realize that
> > you just moved code, but could you please improve these macros a bit and make it
> > look like regular kernel code? I.e. something like:
> >
> > #define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> > ({ \
> > efi_status_t __s; \
> > unsigned long flags; \
> > \
> > arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> > \
> > local_save_flags(flags); \
> > __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> > efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> > arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> > \
> > __s; \
> > })
> >
> > This delineates the various blocks of code: variables, setup, the saving/calling
> > block plus the return code.
> >
> > (Assuming the EFI folks like the whole approach.)
> >
>
> Fine by me, although having a newline after arch_efi_call_virt_setup()
> but not before arch_efi_call_virt_teardown() seems rather arbitrary
It's an oversight! :-)
#define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
({ \
efi_status_t __s; \
unsigned long flags; \
\
arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
\
local_save_flags(flags); \
__s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
\
arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
\
__s; \
})
But if it's too segmented this is fine too:
#define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
({ \
efi_status_t __s; \
unsigned long flags; \
\
arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
local_save_flags(flags); \
__s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
\
__s; \
})
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-12 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-11 19:55 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Fix EFI runtime calls on SGI UV Alex Thorlton
2016-05-11 19:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros Alex Thorlton
2016-05-12 6:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-05-12 7:35 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-05-12 8:17 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-05-16 23:00 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-12 12:06 ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-16 22:58 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-17 12:11 ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-17 20:14 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-11 19:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] Fix efi_call Alex Thorlton
2016-05-12 6:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-05-12 11:43 ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-16 16:24 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-12 11:41 ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-16 16:25 ` Alex Thorlton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160512081739.GA25826@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox