Re: [GIT PULL] First batch of KVM changes for 5.6 merge window

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] First batch of KVM changes for 5.6 merge window
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:08:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a7038958-bbab-4c53-72f0-ece46dc99b4d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjZTUq8u0HZUJ1mKZjb-haBFhX+mKcUv3Kdh9LQb8rg4g@mail.gmail.com>

On 31/01/20 19:01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There are other (pre-existing) differences, but while fixing up the
> merge conflict I really got the feeling that it's confusing and wrong
> to basically use different naming for these things when they are about
> the same bit.

I was supposed to get a topic branch and fix everything up so that both
CPU_BASED_ and VMX_FEATURE_ constants would get the new naming.  When
Boris alerted me of the conflict and I said "thanks I'll sort it out",
he probably interpreted it as me not needing the topic branch anymore.
I then forgot to remind him, and here we are.

> I don't care much which way it goes (maybe the VMX_FATURE_xyz bits
> should be renamed instead of the other way around?) and I wonder what
> the official documentation names are? Is there some standard here or
> are people just picking names at random?

The official documentation names are the ones introduced by the KVM pull
request ("Table 24-6. Definitions of Primary Processor-Based
VM-Execution Controls").  In fact consistency with the documentation was
why we changed them.  On the other hand Sean wanted VMX_FEATURE_* to be
consistent with CPU_BASED_*, which made sense when he wrote the patch.

I'll change the names to match for next week's second batch of KVM changes.

Paolo