From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: nVMX: Emulate EPTP switching for the L1
 hypervisor
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:39:17 +0200
Message-ID: <1f56ecac-501f-b5fc-e6f2-8dbcac6fb63e@redhat.com>
References: <20170710204936.4001-1-bsd@redhat.com>
 <20170710204936.4001-4-bsd@redhat.com>
 <2d50ebc4-9328-ce08-b55b-6a331ee13cc3@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <2d50ebc4-9328-ce08-b55b-6a331ee13cc3@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 11/07/2017 09:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> +static inline bool nested_cpu_has_eptp_switching(struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>> +{
>> +	return nested_cpu_has_vmfunc(vmcs12) &&
>> +		(vmcs12->vm_function_control &
>
> I wonder if it makes sense to rename vm_function_control to
> - vmfunc_control
> - vmfunc_controls (so it matches nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls)
> - vmfunc_ctrl

Blame Intel for this. :) They use full English names for VMCS fields (so
"VM-function control") and uppercase names for MSRs (so "IA32_VMX_VMFUNC").

"nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls" could be renamed to "nested_vmx_vmfunc" for
consistency, but I like the longer name too.

Paolo