From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 75E54A29 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:55:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676022923; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XlYTQ4KlxOnSSgOz5EYIJQVx78dcnp/7ObBZhHdZOfo=; b=AFYsqaLP07REA8xGySf/LhwgISCO51Xn1ILsKIBY+XgUubhDocHPoLU0fLtdD592oaFqeY In6cvGHCgGFInltu6m+rZDe9cVmZs8Wbg3DwVsxmk/Z3oB8O9RtPqVqX7gj9e68ANph+Sm vlQzT2luRFl/w+7mR5kRGSZR5ur2mtU= Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-587-wZfglyESPpaqiiAkPNLjIg-1; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 04:55:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: wZfglyESPpaqiiAkPNLjIg-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id ud13-20020a170907c60d00b0088d773d11d6so3287065ejc.17 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:55:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XlYTQ4KlxOnSSgOz5EYIJQVx78dcnp/7ObBZhHdZOfo=; b=PHSw7zKJ/oL9BDhaGevAF52mpkgjZphVZNROoa+DSdeOYxbyYtTgvCS7Zdrs8TLkwv 9mKZ0BKgb3rDdaRwB/FuAAe1TWvf1KxMW+A8osThw01RONyH1bzQvU8eHdC+h/oY23Fb 6Wg3Aq5i/Q37np/KNNg6Kg9nsd1myk9ehqxpsVPK1FCT7od3XDJxnoOGz161IFVmW/nG w51l7fMwKLonoRzvOW8hgho0LHC06fhHiq1EpnAQDcVQyR649SiKNiyMpqmJkFDy0VnD Sd9ITxbaerPsCiTEwLptDWoQHIMGo5+8n/8j+as9GW6VcxUeqAGxcaNFm6m+QB0pZqC3 sgQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUUj5dVng+QR9ayKpnoTQ7M+eeuibkCgo8rfOzEpwIx7Kc+F/XM zkzjmdgpklpl0tuDfwyDIAiDIN6IFFpl3weqfyKpm9nZtlwx9q+QuFOaHsd0nj31l4KcFuTcEf3 jFIWzSvsdk76w7A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8e86:b0:8aa:33c4:87d5 with SMTP id tx6-20020a1709078e8600b008aa33c487d5mr14015956ejc.10.1676022920962; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:55:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8l6KUkKlyqNem1AZE2/KhW2JD0JqV9K6hSx1e0fgBDbFsSiIPL5QzIdySg4c0oOxOTyn5rmw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8e86:b0:8aa:33c4:87d5 with SMTP id tx6-20020a1709078e8600b008aa33c487d5mr14015949ejc.10.1676022920808; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from fedora (nat-2.ign.cz. [91.219.240.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a18-20020a170906469200b007c0f217aadbsm2140397ejr.24.2023.02.10.01.55.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:55:20 -0800 (PST) From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: Sean Christopherson , Paolo Bonzini Cc: Tom Rix , kvm@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for CONFIG_HYPERV=n In-Reply-To: References: <20230208205430.1424667-1-seanjc@google.com> <20230208205430.1424667-3-seanjc@google.com> <87mt5n6kx6.fsf@redhat.com> <1433ea0c-5072-b9d9-a533-401bb58f9a80@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:55:19 +0100 Message-ID: <875yc97sl4.fsf@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Sean Christopherson writes: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> > > +static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void) >> > > +{ >> > > + return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs); >> > > +} >> > I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not >> > worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear >> > which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS >> > ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()' >> > and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside? >> >> I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, > > +1, IIUC KVM can run on Hyper-V without eVMCS being enabled. > >> but I agree a better name could be something like kvm_uses_evmcs()? > > kvm_is_using_evmcs()? > Sounds good to me! -- Vitaly