On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Shiyuan Gao wrote:
> In vmx, ept_level looks better than tdp level and is consistent with
> svm get_npt_level().
>
> Signed-off-by: Shiyuan Gao <gaoshiyuan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index df461f387e20..f0cfd1f10a06 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -3350,7 +3350,7 @@ void vmx_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
> vmx->emulation_required = vmx_emulation_required(vcpu);
> }
>
> -static int vmx_get_max_tdp_level(void)
> +static int vmx_get_max_ept_level(void)
> {
> if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_5levels())
> return 5;
> @@ -8526,7 +8526,7 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> */
> vmx_setup_me_spte_mask();
>
> - kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_tdp_level(),
> + kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_ept_level(),
> ept_caps_to_lpage_level(vmx_capability.ept));
Anyone else have an opinion on this? I'm leaning toward applying it, but a small
part of me also kinda likes the "tdp" name (though every time I look at this patch
that part of me gets even smaller...).
