On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:11:32 +0100, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Honestly, I think pKVM is simply being too cute in picking names. I don't know what you mean by "cute" here, but I assume this is not exactly a flattering qualifier. > And not just for "shadow", e.g. IMO the flush/sync terminology in > patch 24 is also unnecessarily cute. Instead of coming up with > clever names, just be explicit in what the code is doing. > E.g. something like: > > flush_shadow_state() => sync_host_to_pkvm_vcpu() > sync_shadow_state() => sync_pkvm_to_host_vcpu() As much as I like bikesheding, this isn't going to happen. We have had the sync/flush duality since day one, we have a lot of code based around this naming, and departing from it seems counter productive. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
