lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/irq: Add hardcoded hypervisor interrupts to /proc/stat
Date
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:07 AM
>
> On 2/27/23 10:46, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > index 766ffe3..9f668d2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > @@ -211,6 +211,13 @@ u64 arch_irq_stat_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_THRESHOLD
> > sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_threshold_count;
> > #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HV_CALLBACK_VECTOR
> > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_callback_count;
> > +#endif
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV)
> > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_reenlightenment_count;
> > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->hyperv_stimer0_count;
> > +#endif
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
> > sum += per_cpu(mce_exception_count, cpu);
> > sum += per_cpu(mce_poll_count, cpu);
>
> This seems fine, especially since arch_show_interrupts() has them. But,
> what's with the "#if IS_ENABLED" versus the plain #ifdef? Is there some
> difference I'm missing? Why not just be consistent with the other code
> and use a plain #ifdef for both?

I'm following the coding pattern in arch_show_interrupts(), in irq_cpustat_t,
and most other places that test CONFIG_HYPERV. Maybe all those existing
cases are a mis-application of Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
Section 21, which prefers "if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV))" over
"#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV". "#if IS_ENABLED()" is not the same as
"if (IS_ENABLED())". :-)

Net, I don't have a strong preference either way.

Michael



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 01:13    [W:1.179 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site