[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZF7KbsCXBQHnOv7g@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 16:23:26 -0700
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to
KVM_MMU_WARN_ON()
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are
> all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU.
I think adding KVM is a step in the right direction but I have 2
remaining problems with KVM_MMU_WARN_ON():
- Reminds me of VM_WARN_ON(), which toggles between WARN_ON() and
BUG_ON(), whereas KVM_MMU_WARN_ON() toggles between no-op and
WARN_ON().
- It's not obvious from the name that it's a no-op most of the time.
Naming is hard so I might just make things worse by trying but...
How about KVM_MMU_PROVE(condition). That directly pairs it with the new
CONFIG_KVM_PROVE_MMU(), makes it sufficiently different from
VM_WARN_ON() and WARN_ON() that readers will not make assumptions about
what's happening under the hood. Also "PROVE" sounds like a high bar
which conveys this might not always be enabled.
That also will allow us to convert this to a WARN_ON_ONCE() (my
suggestion on the other patch) without having to make the name any
longer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists