Re: [PATCH v9 06/22] x86/cea: Export __this_cpu_ist_top_va() to KVM

[Xin Li]

> On Jan 30, 2026, at 5:46 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 01:18:54PM -0700, Xin Li (Intel) wrote:
>> @@ -36,6 +41,7 @@ noinstr unsigned long __this_cpu_ist_top_va(enum exception_stack_ordering stack)
>> {
>> return __this_cpu_ist_bottom_va(stack) + EXCEPTION_STKSZ;
>> }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES(__this_cpu_ist_top_va, "kvm-intel");
> 
> Why is this function name still kept with the "__" prefix but it is being
> exported at the same time?
> 
> It looks to me like we're exporting the wrong thing as the "__" kinda says it
> is an internal helper.
> 
> Just drop the prefix and call it something more sensible please. The caller
> couldn't care less about "ist_top_va".

Right, the “__” prefix no longer makes sense.

What is the right order of rename and refactor?

I think we usually do renames in the first patch and then refactor in a following patch.