Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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()?
>
Sounds good to me!
--
Vitaly
