Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:05:45 +1300
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.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: <20220210130545.69cfffc8f9ced7d215141a17@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <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>
        <YgQl6Uk9rONgv9+F@zn.tnic>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


> > 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. :-)

Having vmx.c under tdx/ directory looks a little bit strange.

vmx.c seems more like "generic non-KVM host virtualization staff".

> 
> > 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...
> 

So if I catch you guys correctly, so far I am heading towards to:

	arch/x86/virt/vmx/
		tdx.c

("vmx/" can be changed if you guys prefers others later).

And I am targeting to use single tdx.c to hold ~2k LoC since looks like single
file is preferred.