Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] memory: Rename memory_region_has_guest_memfd() to *_private()

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 03:10:24PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 11/20/2025 1:29 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Rename the function with "_private" suffix, to show that it returns true
> > only if it has an internal guest-memfd to back private pages (rather than
> > in-place guest-memfd).

PS: I forgot to update here, I'll use "fully shared" to replace "in-place".

> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >   include/system/memory.h | 6 +++---
> >   accel/kvm/kvm-all.c     | 6 +++---
> >   system/memory.c         | 2 +-
> >   3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/system/memory.h b/include/system/memory.h
> > index 2c1a5e06b4..4428701a9f 100644
> > --- a/include/system/memory.h
> > +++ b/include/system/memory.h
> > @@ -1823,14 +1823,14 @@ static inline bool memory_region_is_romd(MemoryRegion *mr)
> >   bool memory_region_is_protected(MemoryRegion *mr);
> >   /**
> > - * memory_region_has_guest_memfd: check whether a memory region has guest_memfd
> > - *     associated
> > + * memory_region_has_guest_memfd_private: check whether a memory region has
> > + *     guest_memfd associated
> 
> Nit: maybe change it to "guest_memfd_private associated", and maybe put this
> patch after patch 5?

Agree, though maybe I should do this change in the other ramblock patch
(and move that one before this)?

> 
> Otherwise,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu