On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 11:30 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 10:39 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -861,23 +877,20 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > > bool is_amd_compatible;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * FIXME: Drop this macro and use KVM_NR_GOVERNED_FEATURES directly
> > > - * when "struct kvm_vcpu_arch" is no longer defined in an
> > > - * arch/x86/include/asm header. The max is mostly arbitrary, i.e.
> > > - * can be increased as necessary.
> > > + * cpu_caps holds the effective guest capabilities, i.e. the features
> > > + * the vCPU is allowed to use. Typically, but not always, features can
> > > + * be used by the guest if and only if both KVM and userspace want to
> > > + * expose the feature to the guest.
> >
> > Nitpick: Since even the comment mentions this, wouldn't it be better to call this
> > cpu_effective_caps? or at least cpu_eff_caps, to emphasize that these are indeed
> > effective capabilities, e.g these that both kvm and userspace support?
>
> I strongly prefer cpu_caps, in part to match kvm_cpu_caps, but also because adding
> "effective" to the name incorrectly suggests that there are other guest capabilities
> that aren't effective. These are the _only_ per-vCPU capabilities as far as KVM
> is concerned, i.e. they are the single source of truth. kvm_cpu_caps holds KVM's
> capabilities, boot_cpu_data holds kernel capabilities, and bare metal holds its
> capabilities somewhere in silicion.
Looking from this POV, it make sense.
>
> E.g. being pedantic, kvm_cpu_caps are also KVM's effective capabilities, as they
> are a reflection of KVM-the-module's capabilities, module params, kernel capabilities,
> and CPU capabilities.
>
Let it be then,
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
