On Thu, Feb 09, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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,
+1, IIUC KVM can run on Hyper-V without eVMCS being enabled.
> but I agree a better name could be something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?
kvm_is_using_evmcs()?
