On Fri, Mar 04, 2022, Zeng Guang wrote:
+#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, bits) \Drop the newline, there's no need to split this across two lines. Aligning the
+static inline \
+void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
+{ \
+ if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) { \
+ vmcs_write##bits(uname, val); \
+ vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val; \
+ } \
+} \
+static inline u##bits __##lname##_controls_get(struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs)\
+{ \
+ return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname; \
+} \
+static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) \
+{ \
+ return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs); \
+} \
+static inline \
backslashes will mean they all poke past the 80 char soft limit, but that's totally
ok. The whole point of the line limit is to improve readability, and a trivial
runover is much less painful than a split function declaration. As a bonus, all
the backslashes are aligned, have leading whitespace, and still land on a tab stop :-)
#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, bits) \
static inline void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
{ \
if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) { \
vmcs_write##bits(uname, val); \
vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val; \
} \
} \
static inline u##bits __##lname##_controls_get(struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs) \
{ \
return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname; \
} \
static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) \
{ \
return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs); \
} \
static inline void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
{ \
lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val); \
} \
static inline void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
{ \
lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val); \
}
With that fixed,
Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>