Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Add Force Emulation Prefix for "emulate the
 next instruction"
To:     Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>, kernellwp@gmail.com
Cc:     rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <76d08635-59da-4399-bc35-f99a00236725@default>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <0500b892-03a8-4c39-3d92-2c909ae473cb@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:19:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <76d08635-59da-4399-bc35-f99a00236725@default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 27/03/2018 09:52, Liran Alon wrote:
>> +static bool __read_mostly fep = 0;
>> +module_param(fep, bool, S_IRUGO);
> I think this module parameter should have a better name...
> Why not "emulation_prefix" or "enable_emulation_prefix"?
> This short names just confuse the average user.
> It makes him think it is some kind of Intel VT-x technology
> that he isn't aware of :P

Agreed.

> In addition, I think this module parameter should be in kvm module
> (not kvm_intel) and you should add similar logic to kvm_amd module (SVM)

If you can move handle_ud to x86.c, then it makes sense to have the
module parameter in the kvm module.  I haven't checked.

Otherwise you would have to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL the variable; in the end
it's just a debugging tool, so it'd be simpler to just add it separately
to kvm_intel and kvm_amd.

Paolo