Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220204115718.14934-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <YgRApq20ds4FDivX@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YgRApq20ds4FDivX@google.com>
From:   David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:14:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CALzav=ee3JBR+L2uZOaB-ijakMoabEXJLLozy56SQJL+m9KC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] KVM: MMU: MMU role refactoring
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:31 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >   KVM: MMU: replace direct_map with mmu_role.direct
>
> Heresy!  Everyone knows the one true way is "KVM: x86/mmu:"
>
>   $ glo | grep "KVM: MMU:" | wc -l
>   740
>   $ glo | grep "KVM: x86/mmu:" | wc -l
>   403
>
> Dammit, I'm the heathen...
>
> I do think we should use x86/mmu though.  VMX and SVM (and nVMX and nSVM) are ok
> because they're unlikely to collide with other architectures, but every arch has
> an MMU...

Can you document these rules/preferences somewhere? Even better if we
can enforce them with checkpatch :)