Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:08:14 +0100
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To:     Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 000/105] KVM: selftests: Overhaul APIs, purge VCPU_ID
Message-ID: <20220315080814.sqfhamts5tekhxlj@gator>
References: <20220311055056.57265-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220314110653.a46vy5hqegt75wpb@gator>
 <Yi+B5bZ1LpaNCUJT@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yi+B5bZ1LpaNCUJT@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:56:53PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> 
> I think it may make more sense to only define optional functions as
> weak and let the compiler do the screaming for the required ones. Only
> discovering that functions are missing at runtime could be annoying if
> you're cross-compiling and running on a separate host with a different
> architecture.
>

Ah, indeed, no reason to push the lack of required arch functions to
runtime detection, compile time is much better. And, in those cases,
the _arch_ naming will also provide a nice hint that one must implement
it in arch specific code.

Thanks,
drew