[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjKP7_vydkig2FQ4@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:54:39 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
chao.gao@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, mlevitsk@...hat.com,
john.allen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 09/27] KVM: x86: Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to menifest
emulation operations
s/menifest/manifest, though I find the shortlog confusing irrespective of the
typo. I think this would be more grammatically correct:
KVM: x86: Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to manifest their emulation operations
but I still find that unnecessarily "fancy". What about this instead?
KVM: x86: Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to show that they emulate guest accesses
It's not perfect, e.g. it might be read as saying they emulate guest RDMSR and
WRMSR, but for a shortlog I think that's fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists