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
