From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LgLzE-0005KP-11
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:36:24 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LgLzC-0005IW-5r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:36:23 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35140 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LgLzB-0005IC-Q1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:36:21 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.218.171]:40055)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1LgLzB-0004gS-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:36:21 -0400
Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so889792bwz.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49B3F0F5.8020202@redhat.com>
References: <E1LeyCK-0007nk-NI@cvs.savannah.gnu.org> <49B3EAA8.6050900@web.de>
	<49B3EFDC.8050205@redhat.com> <49B3F0F5.8020202@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:36:19 +0200
Message-ID: <f43fc5580903080936p32094193q448d60c8d5eb1d82@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [6684] Fix "info registers" under kvm.
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 3/8/09, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just still waiting for a reply from Anthony on how to embed best all
> > > the "if (kvm_enabled()) foo();" patterns [2]. That would also allow us
> > > to merge gdbstub support for upstream kvm.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't 'if (!kvm_enabled()) return;' inside the callees suffice?
> >
>
>  Rather,
>
>  static inline void kvm_foo(...)
>  {
>    if (!kvm_enabled()) {
>        return;
>    }
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
>   kvm_do_foo();
>  #endif
>
>  }

kvm_foo may then be unused and produce warnings unless also hidden
with #ifdef CONFIG_KVM.