[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875zfig5ec.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 16:58:35 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: VMX: rename 'kvm_area' to 'vmxon_region'
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> writes:
> Super nit: can I convince you to use "KVM: VMX:" instead of "KVM: x86: VMX:"?
>
> $ glo | grep -e "KVM: x86: nVMX" -e "KVM: x86: VMX:" | wc -l
> 8
> $ glo | grep -e "KVM: nVMX" -e "KVM: VMX:" | wc -l
> 1032
>
> I'm very conditioned to scan for "KVM: *VMX:", e.g. I was about to complain
> that this used the wrong scope :-) And in the event that Intel adds a new
> technology I'd like to be able to use "KVM: Intel:" and "KVM: ***X:"
> instead of "KVM: x86: Intel:" and "KVM: x86: Intel: ***X:" for code that is
> common to Intel versus specific to a technology.
What if someone else adds VMX instead? :-)
Point taken, will use 'KVM: VMX:' in the future (and I'm in no way
object to changing this in the queue if it's not too late).
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists