[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <03eccdf96e917e178acbc3cc53a965328a5690b6.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 23:54:50 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
CC: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>, "sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Aktas, Erdem"
<erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Yamahata, Isaku"
<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support mirror root for TDP
MMU
On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 15:38 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > Could we move them to tdp_mmu.c and rename them to something like
> > tdp_mmu_type_to_root() and tdp_mmu_fault_to_root() ?
>
> tdp_mmu_get_root_for_fault() was proposed by Paolo, and tdp_mmu_get_root() was
> discussed without comment. Not to say there is anything wrong with the names
> proposed, but I think this is wading into bikeshedding territory at this
> stage.
I kept thinking about this comment. On more consideration tdp_mmu_get_root() is
a problematically terrible name since "get" usually means take a reference to
something which is something you can do to roots and (and what
kvm_tdp_mmu_get_root() is doing). So people might think tdp_mmu_get_root() is
taking a reference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists