On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:01:38PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > 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 :-) Yes, that is a good point. > > > 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. > Maybe just abbreviated "Kvm Selftests", i.e. 'ks_'? I won't harp on this any longer though, so if that doesn't look good, then we can proceed with 'kvm_'. Thanks, drew
