| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call() | From | Rasmus Villemoes <> | Date | Sat, 2 May 2020 15:08:00 +0200 |
| |
On 01/05/2020 22.29, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Extend the static_call infrastructure to optimize the following common > pattern: > > if (func_ptr) > func_ptr(args...) > > + > #define static_call(name) __static_call(name) > +#define static_cond_call(name) (void)__static_call(name) > > + > #define static_call(name) __static_call(name) > +#define static_cond_call(name) (void)__static_call(name) >
> +#define static_cond_call(name) \ > + if (STATIC_CALL_KEY(name).func) \ > + ((typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)(STATIC_CALL_KEY(name).func)) > +
This addresses neither the READ_ONCE issue nor the fact that, AFAICT, the semantics of
static_cond_call(foo)(i++)
will depend on CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL. Also, I'd have appreciated being cc'ed on new revisions instead of stumbling on it by chance.
Rasmus
|