lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 11/19] x86/cpu: Print VMX flags in /proc/cpuinfo using VMX_FEATURES_*
From
Date
On 12/12/19 19:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Using v<feature> across the board makes sense to keep things consistent,
> i.e. vnmi, vtpr, vapic, etc...
>
> Anyone have thoughts on how to shorten "APIC-register virtualization"
> without colliding with vapic or apicv? I currently have apic_reg_virt,
> which is a bit wordy. apic_regv isn't awful, but I don't love it.

Perhaps vapic_access and vapic_register?

>
> The other control that will be awkard is "Virtual Interrupt Delivery".
> vint_delivery?

We can just use vid I think. And posted_intr.

>>> unrestricted_guest -> unres_guest
>>
>> Full? Or just unrestricted
>
> I prefer unrestricted_guest, a bare unrestricted just makes me wonder
> "unrestricted what?". But I can live with "unrestricted" if that's the
> consensus.

I do prefer unrestricted_guest actually.

>> In general I would stick to the same names as kvm_intel module
>> parameters (sans "enable_" if applicable) and not even bother publishing
>> the others. Some features are either not used by KVM or available on
>> all VMX processors.
>
> IMO there's value in printing features that are not 1:1 with module params.
>
> I also think it makes sense to print features of interest even if KVM
> doesn't (yet) support the feature, e.g. to allow a user/developer to check
> if they can use/test a KVM build with support for a new feature without
> having to build and install the new kernel.
>
>> Paolo
>>
>>> and so on. Those are just my examples - I betcha the SDM is more
>>> creative here with abbreviations. But you guys are going to grep for
>>> them. If it were me, I'd save on typing. :-)
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 19:24    [W:0.090 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site