Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Deduplicate MSR interception enabling and disabling

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>]

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> index 5453478d1ca3..cc5f81afd8af 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -685,21 +685,21 @@ static bool msr_write_intercepted(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr)
>>  	return svm_test_msr_bitmap_write(msrpm, msr);
>>  }
>>  
>> -void svm_disable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>> +void svm_set_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type, bool enable)
>
>I don't love "enable", because without the context of the wrapper to clarify the
>polarity, it might not be super obvious that "enable" means "enable interception".
>
>I'm leaning towards "set", which is also flawed, mainly because it conflicts with
>the "set" in the function name.  But IMO, that's more of a problem with the function
>name.
>
>Anyone have a strong opinion one way or the other?
>
>> -void svm_enable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>> +void svm_disable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>
>The wrappers can be "static inline" in the header.
>
>If no one objects to s/enable/set (or has an alternative name), I'll apply this:

Looks good to me.