On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:30 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023, David Matlack wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are > > > all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU. > > > > I think adding KVM is a step in the right direction but I have 2 > > remaining problems with KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(): > > > > - Reminds me of VM_WARN_ON(), which toggles between WARN_ON() and > > BUG_ON(), whereas KVM_MMU_WARN_ON() toggles between no-op and > > WARN_ON(). > > No, VM_WARN_ON() bounces between WARN_ON() and nop, just like KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(). > There's an extra bit of magic that adds a static assert that the code is valid > (which I can/should/will add), but the runtime behavior is a nop. Ah, you're right, I misread VM_WARN_ON().
