Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] KVM: arm64: Introduce pKVM shadow state at EL2
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Date: 2022-07-20 09:26:52
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:11:32 +0100, Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:
Honestly, I think pKVM is simply being too cute in picking names.
I don't know what you mean by "cute" here, but I assume this is not exactly a flattering qualifier.
And not just for "shadow", e.g. IMO the flush/sync terminology in patch 24 is also unnecessarily cute. Instead of coming up with clever names, just be explicit in what the code is doing. E.g. something like: flush_shadow_state() => sync_host_to_pkvm_vcpu() sync_shadow_state() => sync_pkvm_to_host_vcpu()
As much as I like bikesheding, this isn't going to happen. We have had the sync/flush duality since day one, we have a lot of code based around this naming, and departing from it seems counter productive. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel