On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:44:23PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > + * Usage example:
> > + *
> > + * # Start with the following functions (with identical prototypes):
> > + * int func_a(int arg1, int arg2);
> > + * int func_b(int arg1, int arg2);
> > + *
> > + * # Define a 'my_key' reference, associated with func_a() by default
> > + * DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(my_key, func_a);
> > + *
> > + * # Call func_a()
> > + * static_call(my_key, arg1, arg2);
> > + *
> > + * # Update 'my_key' to point to func_b()
> > + * static_call_update(my_key, func_b);
> > + *
> > + * # Call func_b()
> > + * static_call(my_key, arg1, arg2);
>
> I think that this calling interface is not very intuitive.
Yeah, it is somewhat unfortunate..
> I understand that
> the macros/objtool cannot allow the calling interface to be completely
> transparent (as compiler plugin could). But, can the macros be used to
> paste the key with the “static_call”? I think that having something like:
>
> static_call__func(arg1, arg2)
>
> Is more readable than
>
> static_call(func, arg1, arg2)
Doesn't really make it much better for me; I think I'd prefer to switch
to the GCC plugin scheme over this. ISTR there being some propotypes
there, but I couldn't quickly locate them.
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define static_call_update(key, func)
> > \
> > +({ \
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__same_type(func, STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(key))); \
> > + __static_call_update(&key, func); \
> > +})
>
> Is this safe against concurrent module removal?
It is for CONFIG_MODULE=n :-)
