Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:47:26 -0700 | From | Sean Christopherson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_invalidate_gva |
| |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:45:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 28/03/20 19:26, Sean Christopherson wrote: > >> + if (mmu != &vcpu->arch.guest_mmu) { > > Doesn't need to be addressed here, but this is not the first time in this > > series (the large TLB flushing series) that I've struggled to parse > > "guest_mmu". Would it make sense to rename it something like nested_tdp_mmu > > or l2_tdp_mmu? > > > > A bit ugly, but it'd be nice to avoid the mental challenge of remembering > > that guest_mmu is in play if and only if nested TDP is enabled. > > No, it's not ugly at all. My vote would be for shadow_tdp_mmu.
Works for me. My vote is for anything other than guest_mmu :-)
| |