On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:24:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On that note, what do you think about tweaking the naming from > > > > DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(name, typename); > > static_cond_call(name)(args...); > > > > to > > > > DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NO_FUNC(name, typename); > > static_call_if_func(name)(args...); > > > > ? > > > > Seems clearer to me. They're still STATIC_CALLs, so it seems logical to > > keep those two words together. And NO_FUNC clarifies the initialized > > value. > > > > Similarly RETTRAMP could be ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NO_FUNC. > > So I dislike static_call_if_func(), that's so much typing. Also, I > prefer ARCH_*_RETTRAMP as it clearly describes what the thing is. > > How is something like this?
I like DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL. I also like the new comment. And if you're calling it DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL then it seems like ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL would be the logical name rather than RETTRAMP? Still not crazy about static_cond_call(), though I think at least changing it to static_call_cond() would be better for namespacing reasons. -- Josh
