On 12 May 2016 at 08:46, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Alex Thorlton <athorl...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
>> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
>> +({ \
>> + efi_status_t __s; \
>> + unsigned long flags; \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
>> + local_save_flags(flags); \
>> + __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
>> + efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
>> + __s; \
>> +})
>> +
>> +#define __efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
>> +({ \
>> + unsigned long flags; \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
>> + local_save_flags(flags); \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
>> + efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
>> +})
>> +
>> +#define uv_call_virt(f, args...) \
>> +({ \
>> + efi_status_t __s; \
>> + unsigned long flags; \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
>> + local_save_flags(flags); \
>> + __s = uv_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
>> + efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
>> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
>> + __s; \
>> +})
>
> Btw., a very (very!) small stylistic nit that caught my eyes, and I realize
> that
> you just moved code, but could you please improve these macros a bit and make
> it
> look like regular kernel code? I.e. something like:
>
> #define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> ({ \
> efi_status_t __s; \
> unsigned long flags; \
> \
> arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> \
> local_save_flags(flags); \
> __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> \
> __s; \
> })
>
> This delineates the various blocks of code: variables, setup, the
> saving/calling
> block plus the return code.
>
> (Assuming the EFI folks like the whole approach.)
>
Fine by me, although having a newline after arch_efi_call_virt_setup()
but not before arch_efi_call_virt_teardown() seems rather arbitrary
--
Ard.
