On Mon Apr 17, 2023 at 6:40 PM EEST, Sean Christopherson wrote: > What do y'all think about renaming "restrictedmem" to "guardedmem"? > > I want to start referring to the code/patches by its syscall/implementation name > instead of "UPM", as "UPM" is (a) very KVM centric, (b) refers to the broader effort > and not just the non-KVM code, and (c) will likely be confusing for future reviewers > since there's nothing in the code that mentions "UPM" in any way. > > But typing out restrictedmem is quite tedious, and git grep shows that "rmem" is > already used to refer to "reserved memory". > > Renaming the syscall to "guardedmem"... > > 1. Allows for a shorthand and namespace, "gmem", that isn't already in use by > the kernel (see "reserved memory above"). > > 2. Provides a stronger hint as to its purpose. "Restricted" conveys that the > allocated memory is limited in some way, but doesn't capture how the memory > is restricted, e.g. "restricted" could just as easily mean that the allocation > can be restricted to certain types of backing stores or something. "Guarded" > on the other hand captures that the memory has extra defenses of some form. > > 3. Is shorter to type and speak. Work smart, not hard :-) > > 4. Isn't totally wrong for the KVM use case if someone assumes the "g" means > "guest" when reading mail and whatnot. > > > P.S. I trimmed the Cc/To substantially for this particular discussion to avoid > spamming folks that don't (yet) care about this stuff with another potentially > lengthy thread. Feel free to add (back) any people/lists. I guess 'guarded' could be a good noun in the sense that it does not get easily mixed up to anything pre-existing, and it does give the idea of the purpose. BR, Jarkko
