[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJGv34BOxa8YJvRy@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 20:34:39 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Lazily allocate memslot rmaps
On Tue, May 04, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/05/21 22:13, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * If set, the rmap should be allocated for any newly created or
> > > + * modified memslots. If allocating rmaps lazily, this may be set
> > > + * before the rmaps are allocated for existing memslots, but
> > > + * shadow_mmu_active will not be set until after the rmaps are fully
> > > + * allocated.
> > > + */
> > > + bool alloc_memslot_rmaps;
> > Maybe "need_rmaps" or "need_memslot_rmaps"?
> >
>
> Since we're bikeshedding I prefer "memslots_have_rmaps" or something not too
> distant from that.
Works for me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists