Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <40930834-8f54-4701-d3ec-f8287bc1333f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:58:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] KVM: MMU: MMU role refactoring
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
References: <20220204115718.14934-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <YgGmgMMR0dBmjW86@google.com> <YgGq31edopd6RMts@google.com>
 <CALzav=d05sMd=ARkV+GMf9SkxKcg9c9n5ttb274M2fZrP27PDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YgRmXDn7b8GQ+VzX@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YgRmXDn7b8GQ+VzX@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/10/22 02:11, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> In a vacuum, I 100% agree that guest_role is better than cpu_role or vcpu_role,
> but the term "guest" has already been claimed for "L2" in far too many places.
> 
> While we're behind the bikeshed... the resulting:
> 
> 	union kvm_mmu_role cpu_role;
> 	union kvm_mmu_page_role mmu_role;
> 
> is a mess.  Again, I really like "mmu_role" in a vacuum, but juxtaposed with
> 	
> 	union kvm_mmu_role cpu_role;
> 
> it's super confusing, e.g. I expected
> 
> 	union kvm_mmu_role mmu_role;

What about

	union kvm_mmu_page_role root_role;
	union kvm_mmu_paging_mode cpu_mode;

?  I already have to remove ".base" from all accesses to mmu_role, so 
it's not much extra churn.

Paolo