On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
+static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void) +{ + return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs); +}I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()' and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside?
I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, but I agree a better name could be something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?
Paolo
