On 31/03/20 12:33, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Works for me. My vote is for anything other than guest_mmu :-) > > Oh come on guys, nobody protested when I called it this way :-) Sure I take full responsibility for that. :) > Peronally, I don't quite like 'shadow_tdp_mmu' because it doesn't have > any particular reference to the fact that it is a nested/L2 related > thing (maybe it's just a shadow MMU?) Well, nested virt is the only case in which you shadow TDP. Both interpretations work: * "shadow tdp_mmu": an MMU for two-dimensional page tables that employs shadowing * "shadow_tdp MMU": the MMU for two-dimensional page tables. > Also, we already have a thing > called 'nested_mmu'... Maybe let's be bold and rename all three things, > like > > root_mmu -> l1_mmu > guest_mmu -> l1_nested_mmu > nested_mmu -> l2_mmu (l2_walk_mmu) I am not particularly fond of using l1/l2 outside code that specifically deals with nested virt. Also, l1_nested_mmu is too confusing with respect to the current nested_mmu (likewise for root_mmu I would rename it to guest_mmu but it would be an awful source of mental confusion as well as semantic source code conflicts). That said, I wouldn't mind replacing nested_mmu to something else, for example nested_walk_mmu. Paolo
