On (Wed) 20 Aug 2025 [09:18:29], Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-05-19 at 16:22 -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > > +static inline void vmcb_set_flush_guest_rap(struct vmcb *vmcb)
> > > > +{
> > > > + vmcb->control.erap_ctl |= ERAP_CONTROL_FLUSH_RAP;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void vmcb_clr_flush_guest_rap(struct vmcb *vmcb)
> > > > +{
> > > > + vmcb->control.erap_ctl &= ~ERAP_CONTROL_FLUSH_RAP;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void vmcb_enable_extended_rap(struct vmcb *vmcb)
> > >
> > > s/extended/larger/ to match the bit name ?
> >
> > I also prefer it with the "larger" name, but that is a confusing bit
> > name -- so after the last round of review, I renamed the accessor
> > functions to be "better", while leaving the bit defines match what the
> > CPU has.
> >
> > I don't mind switching this back - anyone else have any other opinions?
>
> They both suck equally? :-)
>
> My dislike of "larger" is that it's a relative and intermediate term. What is
> the "smaller" size? Is there an "even larger" or "largest size"?
>
> "extended" doesn't help in any way, because that simply "solves" the problem of
> size ambiguity by saying absolutely nothing about the size.
I agree with that; but it's just how the bit is named in the APM, so...
> I also dislike "allow", because in virtualization context, "allow" usually refers
> to what the _guest_ can do, but in this case "allow" refers to what the CPU can
> do.
(same as above)
> If we want to diverge from the APM, my vote would be for something like
>
> ERAP_CONTROL_FULL_SIZE_RAP
Oh I def didn't want to diverge from the APM (for the name of the bit). I
only wnat to check what's palatable for the accessors -- but a quick read of
the followup reply shows you're asking to drop them and just use the checks
directly, that's fine - no need for these accessors and this renaming.
Amit
