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

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, May 20, 2021, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> So what is your proposal? "tdx_guest_" / "tdx_host_" ?

  1. Abstract things where appropriate, e.g. I'm guessing there is a clever way
     to deal with the shared vs. private inversion and avoid tdg_shared_mask
     altogether.

  2. Steal what SEV-ES did for the #VC handlers and use ve_ as the prefix for
     handlers.

  3. Use tdx_ everywhere else and handle the conflicts on a case-by-case basis
     with a healthy dose of common sense.  E.g. there should be no need to worry
     about "static __cpuidle void tdg_safe_halt(void)" colliding because neither
     the guest nor KVM should be exposing tdx_safe_halt() outside of its
     compilation unit.