On Sun, 2023-01-08 at 22:18 +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote: > On 1/7/2023 9:30 PM, Robert Hoo wrote: > > On Sat, 2023-01-07 at 00:35 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022, Robert Hoo wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2022-12-28 at 11:37 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote: > > > > > On 12/9/2022 12:45 PM, Robert Hoo wrote: > > > > > > kvm_vcpu_arch::cr4_guest_owned_bits and > > > > > > kvm_vcpu_arch::cr4_guest_rsvd_bits > > > > > > looks confusing. Rename latter to cr4_host_rsvd_bits, > > > > > > because > > > > > > it in > > > > > > fact decribes the effective host reserved cr4 bits from the > > > > > > vcpu's > > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > > > > IMO, the current name cr4_guest_rsvd_bits is OK becuase it > > > > > shows > > > > > that these > > > > > bits are reserved bits from the pointview of guest. > > > > > > > > Actually, it's cr4_guest_owned_bits that from the perspective > > > > of > > > > guest. > > > > > > No, cr4_guest_owned_bits is KVM's view of things. > > > > That's all right. Perhaps my expression wasn't very accurate. > > Perhaps I > > would have said "cr4_guest_owned_bits stands on guest's points, as > > it > > reads, guest owns these (set) bits". Whereas, "cr4_guest_rsvd_bits" > > doesn't literally as the word reads, its set bits doesn't mean > > "guest > > reserved these bits" but the opposite, those set bits are reserved > > by > > host: > > > > I think you can interpret guest_rsvd_bits as bits reserved *for* > guest > stead of *by* guest > I think you mean reserved-by guest. OK, buy in, as well as Binbin's interpretation.
