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. :-)