On Mon, May 13, 2024, Kai Huang wrote: > On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 16:39 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Rename the various functions that enable virtualization to prepare for > > upcoming changes, and to clean up artifacts of KVM's previous behavior, > > which required manually juggling locks around kvm_usage_count. > > > > Drop the "nolock" qualifier from per-CPU functions now that there are no > > "nolock" implementations of the "all" variants, i.e. now that calling a > > non-nolock function from a nolock function isn't confusing (unlike this > > sentence). > > > > Drop "all" from the outer helpers as they no longer manually iterate > > over all CPUs, and because it might not be obvious what "all" refers to. > > Instead, use double-underscores to communicate that the per-CPU functions > > are helpers to the outer APIs. > > > > I kinda prefer > > cpu_enable_virtualization(); > > instead of > > __kvm_enable_virtualization(); > > But obviously not a strong opinion :-) I feel quite strongly about using __kvm_enable_virtualization(). While "cpu" is very precise, to me it implies that the code lives outside of KVM and isn't purely a helper for kvm_enable_virtualization().
