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;
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 00:27:33 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, mlevitsk@redhat.com, dmatlack@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] KVM: MMU: rename kvm_mmu_reload
Message-ID: <YgWtdUotsoBOOtXz@google.com>
References: <20220209170020.1775368-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20220209170020.1775368-7-pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220209170020.1775368-7-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The name of kvm_mmu_reload is very confusing for two reasons:
> first, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD actually does not call it; second,
> it only does anything if there is no valid root.
> 
> Rename it to kvm_mmu_ensure_valid_root, which matches the actual
> behavior better.

100% agree that kvm_mmu_reload() is a terrible name, but kvm_mmu_ensure_valid_root()
isn't much better, e.g. it sounds like a sanity check and nothing more.

Maybe just be very literalal?

  kvm_mmu_load_if_necessary()
  kvm_mmu_load_if_invalid()

Or follow cond_sched()?

  kvm_mmu_cond_load()