On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:45:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.
Works for me. My vote is for anything other than guest_mmu :-)
