[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1433ea0c-5072-b9d9-a533-401bb58f9a80@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:56:30 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for
CONFIG_HYPERV=n
On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> +static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void)
>> +{
>> + return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs);
>> +}
> I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not
> worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear
> which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS
> ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()'
> and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside?
I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, but I agree a better name could be
something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists