On Wed, Oct 11, 2023, Anish Moorthy wrote:
> > Bike Shedding! Maybe KVM_MEM_EXIT_ON_MISSING? "Exiting" has concrete
> > meaning in the KVM UAPI whereas "userfault" doesn't and could suggest
> > going through userfaultfd, which is the opposite of what this
> > capability is doing.
>
> You know, in the three or four names this thing has had, I'm not sure
> if "exit" has ever appeared :D
>
> It is accurate, which is a definite plus. But since the exit in
> question is special due to accompanying EFAULT, I think we've been
> trying to reflect that in the nomenclature ("memory faults" or
> "userfault")- maybe that's not worth doing though.
Heh, KVM's uAPI surface is so large that there's almost always both an example
and a counter-example. E.g. KVM_CAP_EXIT_ON_EMULATION_FAILURE forces emulation
failures to exit to userspace, whereas KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS disables exits
from guest=>KVM. The latter is why I've shied away from "EXIT", but I think that
I'm looking at the name too much through the lens of a KVM developer, and not
considering how it will be read by KVM users.
So yeah, I agree that KVM_MEM_EXIT_ON_MISSING and KVM_CAP_EXIT_ON_MISSING are
better. Let's go with that.
