Re: [RFC v2 27/32] x86/tdx: Exclude Shared bit from __PHYSICAL_MASK

[Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan]

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