From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04AD54654 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781830570; cv=none; b=iSfxyqEFuE2rMFeb/xevmI++O+9V8CXP84NE+ebo8IZg70iIgd5gOLfuCgQKmmPshMu++j4A60arGQgff6soMBdoIbUB07VD+fISEopMkD2HQ/UE2VYTOVn4E6ElCr8UDRqPfhZQfgwFQ5FL2oJ+uBP7SsKlL/M6GzymDtEybqQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781830570; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Hgpw7oC2rq3RHu7hsYR2onH0kGMmiqkorC1TFJOPhv4=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=pjTyfTbPYP+L2SFaMGAw/1Wawu5rK5e2ysH3dd4/OohPp4mav1ZVf9pf6jj1nrO9/9Ovq0E+G+QIbW1d9EfAghDktqDoPw64yRPUEdCWSjuhSKUMNO28WBeFSimiTJP0zTV7f4DWbsl1YMlig9DzQewaZOc7RmkDLDQiBcWXZXI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ogkbA700; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ogkbA700" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 421B71F000E9; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:56:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781830569; bh=uXmXzVc85gz/qcqW/jIGLZ5JjzHW+3PU4e+t0zSjEhM=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=ogkbA700GziI3a2WPEFwNBwlWNR/hc18DBGkqLJ9wFVwgWk2Gu+9rpptgtUIyXLOX m12tV2KEYiABQGpOkagP7SRuqeB/KDU7dw3eicgHsR5Zg7OIV+tu0Zqo/OD3dWCnZ8 NY0vRypUparIrjHoId9Q+2AZ2Di3LDdHFX5l50IKb9jS5QgnQZSYx2oMsb9D5/Eu7q m721jytOz9xOmRp5fdOSf4EBGv6+hRvvm3e0ZK8Sm+E1Tb4WgaZ1DvxlTQR8UYHqmU 7QztSs5/BAu7FMANI6zIUmZbDZjAUJGJ+lQZ5IQNUYAF9WfnJKfUAz7TvT4hO084UV q9TOj043svyAQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 27/46] KVM: selftests: Rename guest_memfd{,_offset} to gmem_{fd,offset} Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Ackerley Tng via B4 Relay" Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260618-gmem-inplace-conversion-v8-27-9d2959357853@google.com> References: <20260618-gmem-inplace-conversion-v8-0-9d2959357853@google.com> <20260618-gmem-inplace-conversion-v8-27-9d2959357853@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:56:08 +0000 Message-Id: <20260619005609.421B71F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] The renaming of 'guest_memfd' to the 'gmem_' prefix for local varia= bles and parameters is incomplete across the selftests subsystem. -- commit ce3052fec38d2438ddf1c5609c3518407024b32a Author: Sean Christopherson KVM: selftests: Rename guest_memfd{,_offset} to gmem_{fd,offset} This commit renames local variables and function parameters for the guest memory file descriptor and its offset to use a "gmem_" prefix. No functional changes are intended. > Rename local variables and function parameters for the guest memory file > descriptor and its offset to use a "gmem_" prefix instead of > "guest_memfd_". [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but is this renaming incomplete? The commit message implies a general rename across the selftests, but the patch only updates the core library files (kvm_util.c and kvm_util.h). Other test files still use the old naming conventions. For example, in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c: test_invalid_memory_region_flags() { ... int guest_memfd =3D vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, MEM_REGION_SIZE, 0); ... } And in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c: static void test_create_guest_memfd_invalid_sizes(struct kvm_vm *vm, u64 guest_memfd_flags) Should these remaining instances also be updated to the gmem_ prefix to keep the internal naming scheme consistent? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260618-gmem-inpla= ce-conversion-v8-0-9d2959357853@google.com?part=3D27