On 20/03/17 13:59, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 20.03.17 at 14:36, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> 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. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
