Re: [PATCH 00/23] KVM: MMU: MMU role refactoring

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 2/10/22 02:11, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> In a vacuum, I 100% agree that guest_role is better than cpu_role or vcpu_role,
> but the term "guest" has already been claimed for "L2" in far too many places.
>
> While we're behind the bikeshed... the resulting:
>
> 	union kvm_mmu_role cpu_role;
> 	union kvm_mmu_page_role mmu_role;
>
> is a mess.  Again, I really like "mmu_role" in a vacuum, but juxtaposed with
> 	
> 	union kvm_mmu_role cpu_role;
>
> it's super confusing, e.g. I expected
>
> 	union kvm_mmu_role mmu_role;

What about

	union kvm_mmu_page_role root_role;
	union kvm_mmu_paging_mode cpu_mode;

?  I already have to remove ".base" from all accesses to mmu_role, so 
it's not much extra churn.

Paolo