On 7 May 2014 16:20, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > pm_fake doesn't quite describe what the handler does (ignoring writes > and returning 0 for reads). > > As we're about to use it (a lot) in a different context, rename it > with a (admitedly cryptic) name that make sense for all users. > -/* > - * We could trap ID_DFR0 and tell the guest we don't support performance > - * monitoring. Unfortunately the patch to make the kernel check ID_DFR0 was > - * NAKed, so it will read the PMCR anyway. > - * > - * Therefore we tell the guest we have 0 counters. Unfortunately, we > - * must always support PMCCNTR (the cycle counter): we just RAZ/WI for > - * all PM registers, which doesn't crash the guest kernel at least. > - */ > -static bool pm_fake(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > - const struct sys_reg_params *p, > - const struct sys_reg_desc *r) > +static bool trap_wi_raz(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > + const struct sys_reg_params *p, > + const struct sys_reg_desc *r) The standard term for this is "RAZ/WI", not "WI/RAZ", so why not "trap_raz_wi" ? thanks -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
