On Fri, Aug 04, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta > <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Sure, I'll change it to kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs() in v8. > > > While working on the renaming, I realized that since this function is > called from kvm_main.c's kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(). Do we want to rename > this and the other kvm_flush_*() functions that the series introduces > to match their kvm_arch_flush_*() counterparts? Hmm, if we're going to rename one arch hook, then yes, I think it makes sense to rename all the common APIs and arch hooks to match. However, x86 is rife with the "remote_tlbs" nomenclature, and renaming the common APIs will just push the inconsistencies into x86. While I 100% agree that the current naming is flawed, I am not willing to end up with x86 being partially converted. I think I'm ok renaming all of x86's many hooks? But I'd definitely want input from more x86 folks, and the size and scope of this series would explode. Unless Marc objects and/or has a better idea, the least awful option is probably to ignore the poor "remote_tlbs" naming and tackle it in a separate series. Sorry for not noticiing this earlier, I didn't realize just how much x86 uses remote_tlbs. > (spiraling more into this, we also have the 'remote_tlb_flush_requests' and > 'remote_tlb_flush' stats) Regardless of what we decide for the APIs, definitely leave the stats alone. The names are ABI. We could preserve the names and changes the struct fields, but that would be a net negative IMO.
