From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753498AbcEPXAl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 May 2016 19:00:41 -0400
Received: from relay3.sgi.com ([192.48.152.1]:50228 "EHLO relay.sgi.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752246AbcEPXAO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 May 2016 19:00:14 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:00:11 -0500
From: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
        Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros
Message-ID: <20160516230011.GM98477@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
References: <1462996545-98387-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com>
 <1462996545-98387-2-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com>
 <20160512064606.GA30717@gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8Z0faffrN8Jnz9fQPkyn6K69cFaRD348w+m_Lv4Jgynw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160512081739.GA25826@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160512081739.GA25826@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:17:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Fine by me, although having a newline after arch_efi_call_virt_setup()
> > but not before arch_efi_call_virt_teardown() seems rather arbitrary
> 
> It's an oversight! :-)
> 
> #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;								\
> })
> 
> But if it's too segmented this is fine too:
> 
> #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 makes sense to me.  I'll make sure to include something like this
in my next version of the patch.

Thanks, guys!

- Alex