Message-ID: <1433ea0c-5072-b9d9-a533-401bb58f9a80@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:56:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for
 CONFIG_HYPERV=n
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
References: <20230208205430.1424667-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20230208205430.1424667-3-seanjc@google.com> <87mt5n6kx6.fsf@redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <87mt5n6kx6.fsf@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> +static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void)
>> +{
>> +	return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs);
>> +}
> I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not
> worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear
> which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS
> ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()'
> and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside?

I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, but I agree a better name could be 
something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?

Paolo