Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()

Josh Poimboeuf
2020-05-08T15:47:18Z

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:24:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On that note, what do you think about tweaking the naming from
> >
> > DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(name, typename);
> > static_cond_call(name)(args...);
> >
> > to
> >
> > DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NO_FUNC(name, typename);
> > static_call_if_func(name)(args...);
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Seems clearer to me. They're still STATIC_CALLs, so it seems logical to
> > keep those two words together. And NO_FUNC clarifies the initialized
> > value.
> >
> > Similarly RETTRAMP could be ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NO_FUNC.
>
> So I dislike static_call_if_func(), that's so much typing. Also, I
> prefer ARCH_*_RETTRAMP as it clearly describes what the thing is.
>
> How is something like this?

I like DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL. I also like the new comment.

And if you're calling it

DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL

then it seems like

ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL

would be the logical name rather than RETTRAMP?

Still not crazy about static_cond_call(), though I think at least
changing it to static_call_cond() would be better for namespacing
reasons.

--
Josh