Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: Rename functions related to enabling virtualization hardware

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, May 13, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 16:39 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Rename the various functions that enable virtualization to prepare for
> > upcoming changes, and to clean up artifacts of KVM's previous behavior,
> > which required manually juggling locks around kvm_usage_count.
> > 
> > Drop the "nolock" qualifier from per-CPU functions now that there are no
> > "nolock" implementations of the "all" variants, i.e. now that calling a
> > non-nolock function from a nolock function isn't confusing (unlike this
> > sentence).
> > 
> > Drop "all" from the outer helpers as they no longer manually iterate
> > over all CPUs, and because it might not be obvious what "all" refers to.
> > Instead, use double-underscores to communicate that the per-CPU functions
> > are helpers to the outer APIs.
> > 
> 
> I kinda prefer
> 
> 	cpu_enable_virtualization();
> 
> instead of
> 
> 	__kvm_enable_virtualization();
> 
> But obviously not a strong opinion :-)

I feel quite strongly about using __kvm_enable_virtualization().  While "cpu" is
very precise, to me it implies that the code lives outside of KVM and isn't purely
a helper for kvm_enable_virtualization().