On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/01/21 18:15, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > kvm_no_apic_vcpu is different, we actually need to increase it with > > every vCPU which doesn't have LAPIC but maybe we can at least switch to > > static_branch_inc()/static_branch_dec(). It is still weird we initialize > > it to 'false' > > "kvm_no_apic_vcpu" is badly named. It reads as "true if no vCPU has APIC" > but it means "true if some vCPU has no APIC". The latter is obviously false > in the beginning, because there is no vCPUs at all. > > Perhaps a better name would be "kvm_has_noapic_vcpu" (for once, > smashingwordstogether is more readable than the alternative). +1
