Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-156504-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:50:28 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>, 
	Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@hotmail.com>, 
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, 
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Add 'malloc' failure check in
 test_vmx_nested_state
Message-ID: <20240424-e31c64bda7872b0be52e4c16@orel>
References: <20240423073952.2001989-1-chentao@kylinos.cn>
 <878bf83c-cd5b-48d0-8b4e-77223f1806dc@web.de>
 <ZifMAWn32tZBQHs0@google.com>
 <20240423-0db9024011213dcffe815c5c@orel>
 <ZigI48_cI7Twb9gD@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZigI48_cI7Twb9gD@google.com>

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
..
> I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously connected
> to KVM and/or selftests, but unique and short.
>

How about kvmsft_ ? It's based on the ksft_ prefix of kselftest.h. Maybe
it's too close to ksft though and would be confusing when using both in
the same test? I'm not a huge fan of capital letters, but we could also
do something like MALLOC()/CALLOC(). Eh, I don't know. Naming is hard.

Thanks,
drew