[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f56ecac-501f-b5fc-e6f2-8dbcac6fb63e@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:39:17 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: nVMX: Emulate EPTP switching for the L1
hypervisor
On 11/07/2017 09:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> +static inline bool nested_cpu_has_eptp_switching(struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>> +{
>> + return nested_cpu_has_vmfunc(vmcs12) &&
>> + (vmcs12->vm_function_control &
>
> I wonder if it makes sense to rename vm_function_control to
> - vmfunc_control
> - vmfunc_controls (so it matches nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls)
> - vmfunc_ctrl
Blame Intel for this. :) They use full English names for VMCS fields (so
"VM-function control") and uppercase names for MSRs (so "IA32_VMX_VMFUNC").
"nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls" could be renamed to "nested_vmx_vmfunc" for
consistency, but I like the longer name too.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists