On Wed, Aug 04, 2021, Erdem Aktas wrote:
Thank you all for all that great feedback! I will include them in my v2.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 7:46 AM Maxim Levitsky mlevitsk@redhat.com wrote:
Can we pass KVM_X86_LEGACY_VM (whatever name when it's upstreamed) instead of 0?
I was originally thinking of doing this but Sean has suggested that we should use 0 to make it arch-agnostic for creating default VMs. +Sean Christopherson : What do you think?
I hate passing '0', but KVM_X86_LEGACY_VM is worse because it's nonsensical for other architectures.
KVM_X86_NORMAL_VM is a very good name IMHO as well.
But that implies protected guests are abnormal! And KVM_X86_STANDARD_VM would imply protected guests are sub-standard! I'm only half-joking, e.g. if we get to the point where the majority of guests being run are protected guests, then !protected guests are no longer the "standard".
Looking at other architectures, I think the least awful option is a generic KVM_VM_TYPE_AUTO, or maybe KVM_VM_TYPE_DEFAULT. That aligns with how '0' is used by PPC, MIPS, and arm64[*], and would work for x86 as well without implying what's normal/standard.
[*] arm64 uses the type to specify the IPA width (I'm not even sure what that is), but thankfully interprets '0' as a default.