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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230511235917.639770-1-seanjc@google.com> <20230511235917.639770-5-seanjc@google.com>
 <ZF7KbsCXBQHnOv7g@google.com> <ZF7MES4qEKd8T6OW@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZF7MES4qEKd8T6OW@google.com>
From:   David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 16:35:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CALzav=cNJSqhbYhoNLTXJ4Kc=ZmgRPOo9U5bqqFTxhdSatnUag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to KVM_MMU_WARN_ON()
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:30=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are
> > > all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU.
> >
> > I think adding KVM is a step in the right direction but I have 2
> > remaining problems with KVM_MMU_WARN_ON():
> >
> >  - Reminds me of VM_WARN_ON(), which toggles between WARN_ON() and
> >    BUG_ON(), whereas KVM_MMU_WARN_ON() toggles between no-op and
> >    WARN_ON().
>
> No, VM_WARN_ON() bounces between WARN_ON() and nop, just like KVM_MMU_WAR=
N_ON().
> There's an extra bit of magic that adds a static assert that the code is =
valid
> (which I can/should/will add), but the runtime behavior is a nop.

Ah, you're right, I misread VM_WARN_ON().