[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9mk24qy.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:33:25 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_invalidate_gva
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:45:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Works for me. My vote is for anything other than guest_mmu :-)
>
Oh come on guys, nobody protested when I called it this way :-)
Peronally, I don't quite like 'shadow_tdp_mmu' because it doesn't have
any particular reference to the fact that it is a nested/L2 related
thing (maybe it's just a shadow MMU?) Also, we already have a thing
called 'nested_mmu'... Maybe let's be bold and rename all three things,
like
root_mmu -> l1_mmu
guest_mmu -> l1_nested_mmu
nested_mmu -> l2_mmu (l2_walk_mmu)
or something like that?
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists