Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/virt/tdx: Configure add-on features on TDX module init

[Xu Yilun]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 10:59:22AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 03:30:55PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 10:13:56AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 06:26:55PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > > > @@ -998,6 +998,15 @@ static __init int construct_tdmrs(struct list_head *tmb_list,
> > > >  	return ret;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +/* List all kernel supported add-on features0 bits here */
> > > > +#define TDX_KERNEL_SUPPORTED_ADDON_FEATURES0	(0)
> > > > +
> > > > +static __init u64 get_tdx_addon_features0(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return tdx_sysinfo.features.tdx_features0 &
> > > > +		TDX_KERNEL_SUPPORTED_ADDON_FEATURES0;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > How about get_tdx_supported_addon_features() for the above? It makes the
> > 
> > mm.. I think this would make a bit confusion. "tdx_supported" reads like
> > the module supported features, which is just .tdx_features0. But here we
> > want both the module & kernel support. I'm thinking of:
> > 
> >  get_tdx_addon_features0(), just as is
> > 
> >  or
> > 
> >  tdx_get_supported_addon_features0(), maybe this is better?
> 
> Something to describe it's masked with Linux supported features would be
> nicest.
> 
> Maybe something like get_tdx_masked_features0() or just
> get_tdx_usable_features0()?

I like "usable", and I want to keep "addon", not all usable features are
listed here:

  get_tdx_usable_addon_features0()