[PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2023-08-08 17:19, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:07 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
>> > <rananta at google.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Sure, I'll change it to kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs() in v8.
>> > >
>> > While working on the renaming, I realized that since this function is
>> > called from kvm_main.c's kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(). Do we want to rename
>> > this and the other kvm_flush_*() functions that the series introduces
>> > to match their kvm_arch_flush_*() counterparts?
>> 
>> Hmm, if we're going to rename one arch hook, then yes, I think it 
>> makes sense to
>> rename all the common APIs and arch hooks to match.
>> 
>> However, x86 is rife with the "remote_tlbs" nomenclature, and renaming 
>> the common
>> APIs will just push the inconsistencies into x86.  While I 100% agree 
>> that the
>> current naming is flawed, I am not willing to end up with x86 being 
>> partially
>> converted.
>> 
>> I think I'm ok renaming all of x86's many hooks?  But I'd definitely 
>> want input
>> from more x86 folks, and the size and scope of this series would 
>> explode.  Unless
>> Marc objects and/or has a better idea, the least awful option is 
>> probably to ignore
>> the poor "remote_tlbs" naming and tackle it in a separate series.
>> 
> Sure, I think it's better to do it in a separate series as well. I'm
> happy to carry out the task after this one gets merged. But, let's
> wait for Marc and others' opinion on the matter.

Yeah, let's punt that to a separate series. I'm more interested in
getting this code merged than in the inevitable bike-shedding that
will result from such a proposal.

Raghavendra, any chance you could respin the series this week?
I'd really like it to spend some quality time in -next...

Thanks,

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