On Wed, Jun 08, 2022, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:41:52AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...
> > +/*
> > + * ____vm_create() does KVM_CREATE_VM and little else. __vm_create() also
> > + * loads the test binary into guest memory and creates an IRQ chip (x86 only).
> > + */
> > +struct kvm_vm *____vm_create(enum vm_guest_mode mode, uint64_t nr_pages);
> > +struct kvm_vm *__vm_create(enum vm_guest_mode mode, uint64_t nr_pages);
> > +
> > static inline struct kvm_vm *vm_create_barebones(void)
> > {
> > - return __vm_create(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, 0);
> > + return ____vm_create(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, 0);
> > +}
> > +
>
> I don't [overly] mind the "____helperhelper" naming style, but in this
> case wouldn't __vm_create_barebones() also be a reasonable name?
I don't love the four underscores, but I want to use the "barebones" name only for
cases where the intent is to truly create a barebones VM, i.e. I want to avoid the
common path taking a dependency on "barebones".
