[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200212162816.GB15617@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:28:16 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename kvm_mmu->get_cr3() to
->get_guest_cr3_or_eptp()
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:00:59PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/02/20 18:37, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Rename kvm_mmu->get_cr3() to call out that it is retrieving a guest
> > value, as opposed to kvm_mmu->set_cr3(), which sets a host value, and to
> > note that it will return L1's EPTP when nested EPT is in use. Hopefully
> > the new name will also make it more obvious that L1's nested_cr3 is
> > returned in SVM's nested NPT case.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
>
> Should we call it "get_pgd", since that is how Linux calls the top-level
> directory? I always get confused by PUD/PMD, but as long as we only
> keep one /p.d/ moniker it should be fine.
Heh, I have the exact same sentiment. get_pgd() works for me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists