On Thu, Jun 09, 2022, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:01:38PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > 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_'. ks_ was the best I could come up with too. But looking at it in code, I find it more distracting than helpful. It's kind of like the uncanny valley effect, where ks_ *just* close enough to kvm_ that it makes me think something is wrong. struct kvm_sregs sregs; struct kvm_regs regs; struct ks_vcpu *vcpu; struct kvm_run *run;
