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:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:05:27 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>, aarcange@redhat.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, david@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        jgross@suse.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, knsathya@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, sdeep@vmware.com,
        seanjc@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, tony.luck@intel.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3.1 2/32] x86/coco: Explicitly declare type of
 confidential computing platform
Message-ID: <YhOAB1X+D82eEagt@zn.tnic>
References: <YhAWcPbzgUGcJZjI@zn.tnic>
 <20220219001305.22883-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <YhNyY5ErqQHZ961+@zn.tnic>
 <20220221114451.mljggcmadgvrrxbv@black.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220221114451.mljggcmadgvrrxbv@black.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 02:44:51PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Hm. Isn't 'vendor' too generic? It may lead to name conflict in the
> future.

It's a static variable visible only in this unit.

> What is wrong with cc_vendor here? I noticed that you don't like name of
> a variable to match type name. Why?

Because when I look at the name I don't know whether it is the type or a
variable of that type. Sure, sure, it depends on the context but let's
make it as non-ambiguous as possible.

> Currently cc_platform_has() relies on hv_is_isolation_supported() which
> checks for !HV_ISOLATION_TYPE_NONE. This is direct transfer to the new
> scheme. It might be wrong, but it is not regression.

I didn't say it is a regression - I'm just wondering why.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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