[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a1f9477-c289-592e-25ff-f22a37044457@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:45:34 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_invalidate_gva
On 28/03/20 19:26, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> + if (mmu != &vcpu->arch.guest_mmu) {
> Doesn't need to be addressed here, but this is not the first time in this
> series (the large TLB flushing series) that I've struggled to parse
> "guest_mmu". Would it make sense to rename it something like nested_tdp_mmu
> or l2_tdp_mmu?
>
> A bit ugly, but it'd be nice to avoid the mental challenge of remembering
> that guest_mmu is in play if and only if nested TDP is enabled.
No, it's not ugly at all. My vote would be for shadow_tdp_mmu.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists