Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 23:53:36 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        "Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan@linux.intel.com>, jcm@redhat.com,
        longman9394@gmail.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        david.c.stewart@intel.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/24] x86/speculation: Update the TIF_SSBD comment
Message-ID: <20181121225336.GE27559@zn.tnic>
References: <20181121201430.559770965@linutronix.de>
 <20181121201722.337599561@linutronix.de>
 <CAHk-=wgLZkKDLeNN818VG0wC6B_kCUJqKPLdW+KDVocU6_DvtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj6fZpcad+1O5Ou0HZb0NEv1RM_BweyM0XBGtzE87YXXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811212345180.1665@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811212345180.1665@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:48:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Btw, I really do not like the app2app wording. I'd rather go for usr2usr,
> but that's kinda horrible as well. But then, all of this is horrible.
> 
> Any better ideas?

It needs to have "task isolation" in there somewhere as this is what it
does, practically. But it needs to be more precise as in "isolates the
tasks from influence due to shared hardware." :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.