Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 10:47:04 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, bristot@redhat.com, jbaron@akamai.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, hpa@zytor.com, luto@kernel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
Message-ID: <20200508154704.6njw5wfsain7p3ev@treble>
References: <20200501202849.647891881@infradead.org>
 <20200501202944.593400184@infradead.org>
 <20200506172455.ho5em2mtzn7qqfjl@treble>
 <20200508152730.GB3344@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200508152730.GB3344@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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