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;
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 17:18:15 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 048/144] KVM: selftests: Rename 'struct vcpu' to
 'struct kvm_vcpu'
Message-ID: <20220608151815.7mwlj3eppwmujaow@gator>
References: <20220603004331.1523888-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220603004331.1523888-49-seanjc@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220603004331.1523888-49-seanjc@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:41:55AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Rename 'struct vcpu' to 'struct kvm_vcpu' to align with 'struct kvm_vm'
> in the selftest, and to give readers a hint that the struct is specific
> to KVM.

I'm not completely sold on this change. I don't mind that the selftest
vcpu struct isn't named the same as the KVM vcpu struct, since they're
different structs. I also don't mind avoiding 'kvm_' prefixes in "KVM
selftests" (indeed I wonder if we really need the kvm_ prefix for the
vm struct). If we do need prefixes for the kvm selftest framework
code to avoid collisions with test code, then maybe we should invent
something else, rather than use the somewhat ambiguous 'kvm', which
could also collide with stuff in the kvm uapi.

Thanks,
drew