[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:23:46 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/19] x86/cpu: Print VMX flags in /proc/cpuinfo using
VMX_FEATURES_*
On 12/12/19 19:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Using v<feature> across the board makes sense to keep things consistent,
> i.e. vnmi, vtpr, vapic, etc...
>
> Anyone have thoughts on how to shorten "APIC-register virtualization"
> without colliding with vapic or apicv? I currently have apic_reg_virt,
> which is a bit wordy. apic_regv isn't awful, but I don't love it.
Perhaps vapic_access and vapic_register?
>
> The other control that will be awkard is "Virtual Interrupt Delivery".
> vint_delivery?
We can just use vid I think. And posted_intr.
>>> unrestricted_guest -> unres_guest
>>
>> Full? Or just unrestricted
>
> I prefer unrestricted_guest, a bare unrestricted just makes me wonder
> "unrestricted what?". But I can live with "unrestricted" if that's the
> consensus.
I do prefer unrestricted_guest actually.
>> In general I would stick to the same names as kvm_intel module
>> parameters (sans "enable_" if applicable) and not even bother publishing
>> the others. Some features are either not used by KVM or available on
>> all VMX processors.
>
> IMO there's value in printing features that are not 1:1 with module params.
>
> I also think it makes sense to print features of interest even if KVM
> doesn't (yet) support the feature, e.g. to allow a user/developer to check
> if they can use/test a KVM build with support for a new feature without
> having to build and install the new kernel.
>
>> Paolo
>>
>>> and so on. Those are just my examples - I betcha the SDM is more
>>> creative here with abbreviations. But you guys are going to grep for
>>> them. If it were me, I'd save on typing. :-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists