On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:07 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Sure, I think it's better to do it in a separate series as well. I'm happy to carry out the task after this one gets merged. But, let's wait for Marc and others' opinion on the matter. Thank you. Raghavendra > 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.
