Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 27/32] x86/tdx: Exclude Shared bit from __PHYSICAL_MASK | From | "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <> | Date | Thu, 20 May 2021 12:42:08 -0700 |
| |
On 5/20/21 12:33 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> Initially we have used tdx_* prefix for the guest code. But when the code from >> host side got merged together, we came across many name conflicts. > Whatever the conflicts are, they are by no means an unsolvable problem. I am > more than happy to end up with slightly verbose names in KVM if that's what it > takes to avoid "tdg". > >> So to avoid such issues in future, we were asked not to use the "tdx_" prefix >> and our alternative choice was "tdg_". > Who asked you not to use tdx_? More specifically, did that feedback come from a > maintainer (or anyone on-list), or was it an Intel-internal decision?
It is the Intel internal feedback.
> >> Also, IMO, "tdg" prefix is more meaningful for guest code (Trusted Domain Guest) >> compared to "tdx" (Trusted Domain eXtensions). I know that it gets confusing >> when grepping for TDX related changes. But since these functions are only used >> inside arch/x86 it should not be too confusing. >> >> Even if rename is requested, IMO, it is easier to do it in one patch over >> making changes in all the patches. So if it is required, we can do it later >> once these initial patches were merged. > Hell no, we are not merging known bad crud that requires useless churn to get > things right.
So what is your proposal? "tdx_guest_" / "tdx_host_" ?
If there is supposed be a rename, lets wait till we know about maintainers feedback as well. If possible I would prefer not to go through another rename.
-- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer
| |