[RFC PATCH 16/27] KVM: arm64: Prepare Hyp memory protection

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2020-12-07 11:58, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 07 Dec 2020 at 11:16:05 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:01 PM Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thursday 03 Dec 2020 at 12:57:33 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> > > > +int hyp_create_idmap(void);
>> > > > +int hyp_map_vectors(void);
>> > > > +int hyp_back_vmemmap(phys_addr_t phys, unsigned long size, phys_addr_t back);
>> > > > +int hyp_cpu_set_vector(enum arm64_hyp_spectre_vector slot);
>> > > > +int hyp_create_mappings(void *from, void *to, enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot);
>> > > > +int __hyp_create_mappings(unsigned long start, unsigned long size,
>> > > > +                         unsigned long phys, unsigned long prot);
>> > > > +unsigned long __hyp_create_private_mapping(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
>> > > > +                                          unsigned long prot);
>> > > > +
>> > >
>> > > nit: I also thought that the hyp_create_mappings function names are a
>> > > bit confusing, since there's the create_hyp_mappings functions which
>> > > use the aforementioned *hyp_pgtable.
>> >
>> > Sure, happy to re-name those (and hyp_pgtable above). Any suggestions?
>> 
>> Perhaps something to indicate that these are temporary, tmp_ or
>> bootstrap_ maybe?
> 
> Hmm, the thing is these are temporary only in protected mode, they're
> permanent otherwise :/
> 
> Perhaps I could prefix the protected pgtable (and associated functions)
> with 'pkvm_' or so? Marc, any preferences?

None. Whichever name you pick, someone will ask you to change it.
Just call it Bob.

What I really *don't* want is see a blanket rename of existing symbols
or concepts.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...