Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:56:30 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for CONFIG_HYPERV=n | From | Paolo Bonzini <> |
| |
On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> +static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void) >> +{ >> + return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs); >> +} > I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not > worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear > which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS > ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()' > and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside?
I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, but I agree a better name could be something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?
Paolo
| |