On 29/05/20 20:27, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:
>>
>> +static void nested_prepare_vmcb_save(struct vcpu_svm *svm, struct
>> vmcb *nested_vmcb)
>
>
> Not a big deal, but I feel that it helps a lot in readability if we keep
> the names symmetric. This one could be named prepare_nested_vmcb_save to
> match load_nested_vmcb_control that you created in the previous patch.
> Or load_nested_vmcb_control could be renamed to nested_load_vmcb_control
> to match the name here.
This is actually intended: while load_nested_vmcb_control loads the
members of nested_vmcb->control into svm->nested, the two functions in
this patch prepare the svm->vmcb. A couple patches later,
nested_prepare_vmcb_control will not use nested_vmcb anymore.
I could use nested_load_nested_vmcb_control, but that is just too ugly!
Instead, the best thing to do would be to use the vmcb01/vmcb02/vmcb12
names as in nVMX, in which case the functions would become
nested_load_vmcb12_control and nested_prepare_vmcb02_{save,control}.
However this is a bit hard to do right now because the svm->vmcb acts as
both vmcb01 and vmcb02 depending on what is running.
Thanks,
Paolo
