Hi Alex, On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:55:59 +0100, Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > There are two macros to access a specific system register from a known > kvm_cpu_context: __ctxt_sys_reg(), which returns a pointer to the register, > and ctxt_sys_reg(), which deferences the pointer returned by > __ctxt_sys_reg(). > > __vcpu_sys_reg() serves a similar purpose, with the difference being that > it takes a struct kvm_vcpu as a parameter. __vcpu_sys_reg(), although it > looks like __ctxt_sys_reg(), it dereferences the pointer to the register, > like ctxt_sys_reg() does, and indeed it is defined as an abstraction over > ctxt_sys_reg(). > > Let's remove this naming inconsistency by renaming __vcpu_sys_reg() to > vcpu_sys_reg(), to make it clear it behaves like ctxt_sys_reg(), and not > like __ctxt_sys_reg(). I can't say I'm keen on this change. The leading underscores really are there to outline that *this is dangerous*, as you really need to know which context you are in. Dropping the leading '__' may give the false impression that this is safe, and not actually a primitive that requires careful thinking before use. ctxt_sys_reg() is, on the other hand, clearly something that acts solely on memory because it takes a context structure, and not a vcpu. At least that's what the 'ctxt' prefix is supposed to convey (not very successfully, apparently). Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
