In vmx, ept_level looks better than tdp level and is consistent with
svm get_npt_level().

Signed-off-by: Shiyuan Gao <gaoshiyuan@baidu.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
index df461f387e20..f0cfd1f10a06 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -3350,7 +3350,7 @@ void vmx_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
 	vmx->emulation_required = vmx_emulation_required(vcpu);
 }
 
-static int vmx_get_max_tdp_level(void)
+static int vmx_get_max_ept_level(void)
 {
 	if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_5levels())
 		return 5;
@@ -8526,7 +8526,7 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
 	 */
 	vmx_setup_me_spte_mask();
 
-	kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_tdp_level(),
+	kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_ept_level(),
 			  ept_caps_to_lpage_level(vmx_capability.ept));
 
 	/*
-- 
2.36.1

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 19:38:53 +0800, Shiyuan Gao wrote:
> In vmx, ept_level looks better than tdp level and is consistent with
> svm get_npt_level().
> 
> 

Applied to kvm-x86 vmx, thanks!

[1/1] KVM: VMX: Rename vmx_get_max_tdp_level to vmx_get_max_ept_level
      https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/7d18eef13622

--
https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next
https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/fixes

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Shiyuan Gao wrote:
> In vmx, ept_level looks better than tdp level and is consistent with
> svm get_npt_level().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shiyuan Gao <gaoshiyuan@baidu.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index df461f387e20..f0cfd1f10a06 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -3350,7 +3350,7 @@ void vmx_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
>  	vmx->emulation_required = vmx_emulation_required(vcpu);
>  }
>  
> -static int vmx_get_max_tdp_level(void)
> +static int vmx_get_max_ept_level(void)
>  {
>  	if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_5levels())
>  		return 5;
> @@ -8526,7 +8526,7 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
>  	 */
>  	vmx_setup_me_spte_mask();
>  
> -	kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_tdp_level(),
> +	kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_ept_level(),
>  			  ept_caps_to_lpage_level(vmx_capability.ept));

Anyone else have an opinion on this?  I'm leaning toward applying it, but a small
part of me also kinda likes the "tdp" name (though every time I look at this patch
that part of me gets even smaller...).

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Shiyuan Gao wrote:
> > In vmx, ept_level looks better than tdp level and is consistent with
> > svm get_npt_level().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shiyuan Gao <gaoshiyuan@baidu.com <mailto:gaoshiyuan@baidu.com>>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index df461f387e20..f0cfd1f10a06 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -3350,7 +3350,7 @@ void vmx_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
> > vmx->emulation_required = vmx_emulation_required(vcpu);
> > }
> >
> > -static int vmx_get_max_tdp_level(void)
> > +static int vmx_get_max_ept_level(void)
> > {
> > if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_5levels())
> > return 5;
> > @@ -8526,7 +8526,7 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> > */
> > vmx_setup_me_spte_mask();
> >
> > - kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_tdp_level(),
> > + kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_ept_level(),
> > ept_caps_to_lpage_level(vmx_capability.ept));
>
>
> Anyone else have an opinion on this? I'm leaning toward applying it, but a small
> part of me also kinda likes the "tdp" name (though every time I look at this patch
> that part of me gets even smaller...).
>

Remind, please look at this patch again :)