Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_invalidate_gva

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>]

Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:45:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 28/03/20 19:26, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> >> +	if (mmu != &vcpu->arch.guest_mmu) {
>> > Doesn't need to be addressed here, but this is not the first time in this
>> > series (the large TLB flushing series) that I've struggled to parse
>> > "guest_mmu".  Would it make sense to rename it something like nested_tdp_mmu
>> > or l2_tdp_mmu?
>> > 
>> > A bit ugly, but it'd be nice to avoid the mental challenge of remembering
>> > that guest_mmu is in play if and only if nested TDP is enabled.
>> 
>> No, it's not ugly at all.  My vote would be for shadow_tdp_mmu.
>
> Works for me.  My vote is for anything other than guest_mmu :-)
>

Oh come on guys, nobody protested when I called it this way :-)

Peronally, I don't quite like 'shadow_tdp_mmu' because it doesn't have
any particular reference to the fact that it is a nested/L2 related
thing (maybe it's just a shadow MMU?) Also, we already have a thing
called 'nested_mmu'... Maybe let's be bold and rename all three things,
like

root_mmu -> l1_mmu
guest_mmu -> l1_nested_mmu
nested_mmu -> l2_mmu (l2_walk_mmu)

or something like that?

-- 
Vitaly