On 12/12/19 19:18, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Using v<feature> across the board makes sense to keep things consistent, > i.e. vnmi, vtpr, vapic, etc... > > Anyone have thoughts on how to shorten "APIC-register virtualization" > without colliding with vapic or apicv? I currently have apic_reg_virt, > which is a bit wordy. apic_regv isn't awful, but I don't love it. Perhaps vapic_access and vapic_register? > > The other control that will be awkard is "Virtual Interrupt Delivery". > vint_delivery? We can just use vid I think. And posted_intr. >>> unrestricted_guest -> unres_guest >> >> Full? Or just unrestricted > > I prefer unrestricted_guest, a bare unrestricted just makes me wonder > "unrestricted what?". But I can live with "unrestricted" if that's the > consensus. I do prefer unrestricted_guest actually. >> In general I would stick to the same names as kvm_intel module >> parameters (sans "enable_" if applicable) and not even bother publishing >> the others. Some features are either not used by KVM or available on >> all VMX processors. > > IMO there's value in printing features that are not 1:1 with module params. > > I also think it makes sense to print features of interest even if KVM > doesn't (yet) support the feature, e.g. to allow a user/developer to check > if they can use/test a KVM build with support for a new feature without > having to build and install the new kernel. > >> Paolo >> >>> and so on. Those are just my examples - I betcha the SDM is more >>> creative here with abbreviations. But you guys are going to grep for >>> them. If it were me, I'd save on typing. :-) >
