| Date | Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:48:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM) | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 17.04.23 17:40, Sean Christopherson wrote: > What do y'all think about renaming "restrictedmem" to "guardedmem"?
Yeay, let's add more confusion :D
If we're at renaming, I'd appreciate if we could find a terminology that does look/sound less horrible.
> > I want to start referring to the code/patches by its syscall/implementation name > instead of "UPM", as "UPM" is (a) very KVM centric, (b) refers to the broader effort > and not just the non-KVM code, and (c) will likely be confusing for future reviewers > since there's nothing in the code that mentions "UPM" in any way. > > But typing out restrictedmem is quite tedious, and git grep shows that "rmem" is > already used to refer to "reserved memory". > > Renaming the syscall to "guardedmem"...
restrictedmem, guardedmem, ... all fairly "suboptimal" if you'd ask me ...
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
|