On 2023-08-08 17:19, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
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.
Yeah, let's punt that to a separate series. I'm more interested in
getting this code merged than in the inevitable bike-shedding that
will result from such a proposal.
Raghavendra, any chance you could respin the series this week?
I'd really like it to spend some quality time in -next...
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
