Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165698-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:54:39 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20240219074733.122080-10-weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240219074733.122080-1-weijiang.yang@intel.com> <20240219074733.122080-10-weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZjKP7_vydkig2FQ4@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 09/27] KVM: x86: Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to menifest
 emulation operations
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, 
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, 
	chao.gao@intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, mlevitsk@redhat.com, 
	john.allen@amd.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

s/menifest/manifest, though I find the shortlog confusing irrespective of the
typo.  I think this would be more grammatically correct:

  KVM: x86: Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to manifest their emulation operations

but I still find that unnecessarily "fancy".  What about this instead?

  KVM: x86: Rename kvm_{g,s}et_msr()* to show that they emulate guest accesses

It's not perfect, e.g. it might be read as saying they emulate guest RDMSR and
WRMSR, but for a shortlog I think that's fine.