* Alexander Shishkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> @@ -3144,6 +3146,8 @@ static void vmclear_local_loaded_vmcss(void)
> >> static void kvm_cpu_vmxoff(void)
> >> {
> >> asm volatile (__ex(ASM_VMX_VMXOFF) : : : "cc");
> >> +
> >> + intel_pt_vmx(0);
> >> }
> >
> > Yeah so the name intel_pt_vmx() is pretty information-free because it has
> > no verb,
> > only nouns - please name new functions descriptively to after what they do!
>
> I do agree that it can use a better name (and this is a second attempt
> already).
>
> > Something like intel_pt_set_vmx_state() or so?
>
> Hmm how about intel_pt_handle_vmx()? Ideally, akin to the VMXON/VMXOFF insns,
> this could be two functions (intel_pt_handle_vmx{on,off}()) if the global
> namespace can take it.
Sure, intel_pt_handle_vmx(0/1) sounds good too. I wouldn't split it into two
functions ...
Thanks,
Ingo
