Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 21:36:57 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, knsathya@kernel.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, sdeep@vmware.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support
Message-ID: <YgQl6Uk9rONgv9+F@zn.tnic>
References: <20220124150215.36893-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220209235613.652f5720cd196331d7a220ec@intel.com>
 <YgOgog9Pb886lfsv@zn.tnic>
 <20220210003033.e57c2925b69bab5cfabf7292@intel.com>
 <YgOoId+vyd1VhIqQ@zn.tnic>
 <20220210004831.03dea501738bee060003d040@intel.com>
 <YgOr6tZjsooJgAi9@zn.tnic>
 <YgPwwI2+16/7jQC4@google.com>
 <YgQR/S67Fqz9PanR@zn.tnic>
 <YgQfGKXOemtXnFau@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YgQfGKXOemtXnFau@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

+ SEV guys. You can scroll upthread to read up on the context.

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:07:52PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Don't forget :-)
> 
>   arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c - KVM guest stuff

I knew I'd miss something, ofc.

> No objection to omitting "coco".  Though what about using "vmx" and "svm" instead
> of "tdx" and "sev".

I'm not dead-set on this but ...

> We lose the more explicit tie to coco, but it would mirror the
> sub-directories in arch/x86/kvm/

... having them too close in naming to the non-coco stuff, might cause
confusion when looking at:

arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c

vs

arch/x86/virt/vmx/vmx.c

Instead of having

arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c

and

arch/x86/virt/tdx/vmx.c

That second version differs just the right amount. :-)

> and would avoid a mess in the scenario where tdx
> or sev needs to share code with the non-coco side, e.g. I'm guessing TDX will need
> to do VMXON.
> 
>   arch/x86/virt/vmx/
>   	tdx.c
> 	vmx.c
> 
>   arch/x86/virt/svm/
>   	sev.c
> 	sev-es.c
> 	sev-snp.c
>   	svm.c

That will probably be two files too: sev.c and svm.c

But let's see what the other folks think first...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette