On Wed, Jun 08, 2022, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:41:55AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Rename 'struct vcpu' to 'struct kvm_vcpu' to align with 'struct kvm_vm' > > in the selftest, and to give readers a hint that the struct is specific > > to KVM. > > I'm not completely sold on this change. I don't mind that the selftest > vcpu struct isn't named the same as the KVM vcpu struct, since they're > different structs. I don't care about about matching KVM's internal naming exactly, but I do care about not having a bare "vcpu", it makes searching for usage a pain because it's impossible to differentiate between instances of the struct and variables of the same name without additional qualifiers. > I also don't mind avoiding 'kvm_' prefixes in "KVM selftests" (indeed I > wonder if we really need the kvm_ prefix for the vm struct). Same as above, "struct vm *vm" will drive me bonkers :-) > If we do need prefixes for the kvm selftest framework code to avoid > collisions with test code, then maybe we should invent something else, rather > than use the somewhat ambiguous 'kvm', which could also collide with stuff in > the kvm uapi. Potential collisions with the KVM uAPI is a feature of sorts, e.g. tests shouldn't be redefining kvm_* structures (I'd prefer _tests_ not use kvm_* at all, and only use kvm_* in the library), and I gotta imagine KVM would break at least one real world userspace if it defined "kvm_vcpu". That said, I don't have a super strong preference for kvm_ versus something else, though I think it will be difficult to come up with something that's unique, intuitive, and doesn't look like a typo.
