Re: [PATCH v4 11/19] x86/cpu: Print VMX flags in /proc/cpuinfo using VMX_FEATURES_*

[Paolo Bonzini]

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. :-)
>