|
From: | Krish Sadhukhan |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/5 v4] KVM: VMX: Fill in conforming vmx_x86_ops via macro |
Date: | Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:02:15 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 |
On 11/9/20 5:49 PM, Like Xu wrote:
Hi Krish, On 2020/11/10 9:23, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:@@ -1192,7 +1192,7 @@ void vmx_set_host_fs_gs(struct vmcs_host_state *host, u16 fs_sel, u16 gs_sel,} } -void vmx_prepare_switch_to_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +void vmx_prepare_guest_switch(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)What do you think of renaming it to void vmx_prepare_switch_for_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
In my opinion, it sounds a bit odd as we usually say, "switch to something". :-)
From that perspective, {svm|vmx}_prepare_switch_to_guest is probably the best name to keep.
? Thanks, Like Xu{ struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu); struct vmcs_host_state *host_state;@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ void vmx_vcpu_load_vmcs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu,int allocate_vpid(void); void free_vpid(int vpid); void vmx_set_constant_host_state(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx); -void vmx_prepare_switch_to_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); +void vmx_prepare_guest_switch(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);void vmx_set_host_fs_gs(struct vmcs_host_state *host, u16 fs_sel, u16 gs_sel,unsigned long fs_base, unsigned long gs_base); int vmx_get_cpl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |