[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALzav=ee3JBR+L2uZOaB-ijakMoabEXJLLozy56SQJL+m9KC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:14:16 -0800
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] KVM: MMU: MMU role refactoring
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:31 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > KVM: MMU: replace direct_map with mmu_role.direct
>
> Heresy! Everyone knows the one true way is "KVM: x86/mmu:"
>
> $ glo | grep "KVM: MMU:" | wc -l
> 740
> $ glo | grep "KVM: x86/mmu:" | wc -l
> 403
>
> Dammit, I'm the heathen...
>
> I do think we should use x86/mmu though. VMX and SVM (and nVMX and nSVM) are ok
> because they're unlikely to collide with other architectures, but every arch has
> an MMU...
Can you document these rules/preferences somewhere? Even better if we
can enforce them with checkpatch :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists