[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170912210829.cgkuywukf234duk7@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:08:29 +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 10/26] KVM: Introduce
KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REGISTER/UNREGISTER_RAM ioctl
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> Sure, I can do that. In one of the feedback Paolo recommended
> KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_* ioctl name hence I tried to stick with the same name
> for structure. I am flexible to use 'struct enc_region' but I personally
> prefer to keep "mem" somewhere in the structure naming to indicate its for
> *memory* encryption -- maybe struct kvm_mem_enc_region.
I'd drop the "kvm_" prefix: struct mem_enc_region;
But I sense we're bikeshedding here and I'd leave it up to you guys.
My only intent was to shorten those so that they fit on a single line.
In general, I like using small struct names which do not look like
sentences and which give you code that reads quickly, at a glance. But
this is just me.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists