Re: [PATCH v4 21/26] KVM: SVM: Rename vmcb->virt_ext to vmcb->misc_ctl2

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 05:31:01PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > @@ -244,6 +241,8 @@ struct __attribute__ ((__packed__)) vmcb_control_area {
> >  #define SVM_MISC_CTL_SEV_ENABLE		BIT(1)
> >  #define SVM_MISC_CTL_SEV_ES_ENABLE	BIT(2)
> >  
> > +#define SVM_MISC_CTL2_LBR_CTL_ENABLE		BIT_ULL(0)
> > +#define SVM_MISC_CTL2_V_VMLOAD_VMSAVE_ENABLE	BIT_ULL(1)
> 
> Since you're changing names anyways, What do you think about shortening things
> a bit, and using the more standard syle of <scope>_<action>_<flag>?  E.g.
> 
>   #define SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_LBR_VIRTUALIZATION	BIT_ULL(0)
>   #define SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_V_VMLOAD_VMSAVE	BIT_ULL(1)

SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_LBR_VIRTUALIZATION is actually longer, how about
SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_V_LBR? Shorter and more consistent with
SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_V_VMLOAD_VMSAVE.

> 
> Yeah, it diverges from many of the other bits in here, but frankly the names in
> this file are *awful*.
> 
> Actually, maybe that would prompt me to send a cleanup, because the fact that we
> have this set of flags is beyond ridiculous (I geniunely don't remember what
> V_GIF_MASK tracks, off the top of my head).  And in isolation, I can't remember
> iof V_IRQ_MASK is an enable flag or a "IRQs are masked" flagged.
> 
> #define V_IRQ_MASK
> #define V_INTR_MASKING_MASK
> #define V_GIF_MASK
> #define V_GIF_ENABLE_MASK

Yeah I had to open the APM a few times while looking at them before to
figure out which is which :')