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

[Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:53 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284360838), Dong, Eddie wrote:
> 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. 

I think I prefer n1, n2 - just because it's shorter. :)

Tim.

-- 
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering
Citrix Systems UK Ltd.  (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)

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