[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z2F5KboZewSDClKg@google.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:14:17 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] KVM: arm64: Introduce
__pkvm_host_unshare_guest()
On Tuesday 17 Dec 2024 at 08:53:34 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
> nit: This parameter in this patch, and others, is sometimes hyp_vm, at
> others just vm. It would be nicer if it was always the same.
Argh, where specifically do you see inconsistencies? All changes to
mem_protect.c should use 'vm' consistently in this series now.
The code in hyp-main.c does use 'hyp_vm' consistently however, but
perhaps that is what you meant? I did that to follow the pattern of the
existing code that uses 'hyp_vcpu' in that file.
Thanks!
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists