[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 13/13] Nested Virtualiztion: hap-on-hap

["Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 02:37 +0100 on 10 Sep (1284086227), Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> wording is always a challenge in nested virtualization :(
>> 
>> I have similar feeling and thinking. In all the explaination text, we
>> use the term l1 guest, l2 guest which makes everybody easy to
>> understand, but in the code we are avoiding those clear prefix both
>> here and in Qing's patch. How about we use l1/l2 prefix more to
>> explicitly differentiate among them? Just 2 cents, it may be too
>> later.
> 
> That sounds like a good idea.  My only reservation is that it might be
> confusing since we already use l1 and l2 when naming levels of
> pagetables, so e.g. the shadow code has variables called l2gfn.
> 
> Maybe we could use n0, n1, n2 for nesting levels instead?
> 
Or l1g, l2g? Anyway, either is better to me and up to your decision. 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel