Re: [PATCH 10/14] iommufd-lu: Implement ioctl to let userspace mark an HWPT to be preserved

[Vipin Sharma]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:40:44AM +0000, Samiullah Khawaja wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 04:35:32PM -0700, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:09:44PM +0000, Samiullah Khawaja wrote:
> > > From: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > @@ -374,6 +374,10 @@ struct iommufd_hwpt_paging {
> > >  	bool auto_domain : 1;
> > >  	bool enforce_cache_coherency : 1;
> > >  	bool nest_parent : 1;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_LIVEUPDATE
> > > +	bool lu_preserve : 1;
> > > +	u32 lu_token;
> > 
> > Should we use full name i.e. liveupdate here and other places in this
> > series?
> 
> I think using full name liveupdate would be too long in other places in
> this series. And also there are other examples of "luo" being used as a
> short form. Please see:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251125165850.3389713-15-pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx/

That patch is using "luo" short, which I think is also wrong in saying
memfd_luo, as there is nothing related to orchestrator (O of LUO) in
that patch. It is saving memfd state for liveupdate. But that ship has
sailed.

In the current patch, I don't think it will be too long, and it also
easier to read code without someone to know what "lu" is. We have worked
on it so we know what "lu" stands for and kind of accepted it but I
agree what Greg k-h was also suggesting.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/2025093023-frantic-sediment-9849@gregkh/
 - "You have more letters, please use them.  "lu" is too short."

Not a hard no from me, just a suggestion.