Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/pagewalk: Clean up guest_supports_* predicates

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.03.17 at 18:32, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/03/17 13:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.03.17 at 14:36, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 20/03/17 08:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Also I'm still not really happy with the guest_supports_ prefixes
>>>> for this and its L2 counterpart: The question here isn't whether the
>>>> guest supports it (we can't know whether it does), but whether it
>>>> enabled PSE/PAE/LM. Arguably the L3 case is less clear because
>>>> of the mentioned lack of an explicit enabled bit, so I can live with
>>>> the patch going in unchanged (the L2 side then simply for things
>>>> to remain consistent, albeit there's then already the difference of
>>>> parameter types).
>>> How would you prefer them to be named?
>> I think I did (or at least had meant to) suggest guest_uses_...() or
>> something similar.
> 
> Grammatically, that is still somewhat awkward.
> 
> How about guest_can_use_...() ? That logically covers both that the
> feature might be missing, or the control register might not be suitably
> configured.

Fine with me.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel