[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5df7b14f-9108-4aa1-b343-aebcb7e13a96@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 10:34:41 +1200
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini
<pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chao Gao
<chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: Rename functions related to enabling
virtualization hardware
On 22/05/2024 2:28 pm, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Rename the various functions that enable virtualization to prepare for
> upcoming changes, and to clean up artifacts of KVM's previous behavior,
> which required manually juggling locks around kvm_usage_count.
>
> Drop the "nolock" qualifier from per-CPU functions now that there are no
> "nolock" implementations of the "all" variants, i.e. now that calling a
> non-nolock function from a nolock function isn't confusing (unlike this
> sentence).
>
> Drop "all" from the outer helpers as they no longer manually iterate
> over all CPUs, and because it might not be obvious what "all" refers to.
> Instead, use double-underscores to communicate that the per-CPU functions
> are helpers to the outer APIs.
>
> Opportunistically prepend "kvm" to all functions to help make it clear
> that they are KVM helpers, but mostly there's no reason not to.
>
> Lastly, use "virtualization" instead of "hardware", because while the
> functions do enable virtualization in hardware, there are a _lot_ of
> things that KVM enables in hardware.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists