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.
Paolo
