From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C66C07E9A for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E21613AA for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:24:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 57E21613AA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC8C4B087; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:23:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sghqchwo1Mm0; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43F64A7FD; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513D24A195 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:23:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUpvuN8BJkCk for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0109349F83 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from disco-boy.misterjones.org (disco-boy.misterjones.org [51.254.78.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BE3361362; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sofa.misterjones.org ([185.219.108.64] helo=why.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1m3c3U-00DGUt-J0; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:23:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:23:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87k0lt6vnr.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Alexandru Elisei Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] KVM: arm64: Rename __vcpu_sys_reg -> vcpu_sys_reg In-Reply-To: <20210714095601.184854-4-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> References: <20210714095601.184854-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <20210714095601.184854-4-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 185.219.108.64 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.elisei@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, james.morse@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi Alex, On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:55:59 +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > There are two macros to access a specific system register from a known > kvm_cpu_context: __ctxt_sys_reg(), which returns a pointer to the register, > and ctxt_sys_reg(), which deferences the pointer returned by > __ctxt_sys_reg(). > > __vcpu_sys_reg() serves a similar purpose, with the difference being that > it takes a struct kvm_vcpu as a parameter. __vcpu_sys_reg(), although it > looks like __ctxt_sys_reg(), it dereferences the pointer to the register, > like ctxt_sys_reg() does, and indeed it is defined as an abstraction over > ctxt_sys_reg(). > > Let's remove this naming inconsistency by renaming __vcpu_sys_reg() to > vcpu_sys_reg(), to make it clear it behaves like ctxt_sys_reg(), and not > like __ctxt_sys_reg(). I can't say I'm keen on this change. The leading underscores really are there to outline that *this is dangerous*, as you really need to know which context you are in. Dropping the leading '__' may give the false impression that this is safe, and not actually a primitive that requires careful thinking before use. ctxt_sys_reg() is, on the other hand, clearly something that acts solely on memory because it takes a context structure, and not a vcpu. At least that's what the 'ctxt' prefix is supposed to convey (not very successfully, apparently). Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm