lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for CONFIG_HYPERV=n
From
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:16    [W:0.060 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site