[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170905220625.oob7bzl6mzgtljpr@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:06:25 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH v3 01/26] Documentation/virtual/kvm: Add AMD
Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:39:14PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> I was trying map with SEV firmware spec command names but I see your
> point and will call it "KVM_SEV_GET_GUEST_STATUS".
>
>
> > > +
> > > +enum {
> > > + /* guest state is not known */
> > > + SEV_STATE_INVALID = 0;
> >
> > not known or invalid?
>
>
> Again, was trying to follow the spec naming convention but I can go
> with UNKNOWN ..
Yeah, but they will now differ from the spec, which weakens my point
considerably. I guess using KVM_SEV_<spec_name> everywhere is the
optimal solution for the commands and the SEV_STATE_<spec_name> for the
states.
Because having them differ from the spec - esp. for the sake of some
more precise naming - is worse. IMO, of course.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists