Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for CONFIG_HYPERV=n

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > +static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void)
> > +{
> > +	return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs);
> > +}
> I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not
> worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear
> which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS
> ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()'
> and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside?

I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, but I agree a better name could be 
something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?

Paolo