Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:08:27 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "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: <Yg0he8S8Z2vNikQz@google.com>
References: <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>
 <20220210130545.69cfffc8f9ced7d215141a17@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220210130545.69cfffc8f9ced7d215141a17@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, Kai Huang wrote:
> 
> > > 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.

Yeah, it's inverted.  TDX is a built on top of VMX.  If/when we end up with stuff
that is relevant to VMX but not TDX, then we'll be referencing tdx/ for things
that that don't care at all about TDX.