[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pnd752b6.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> TBH, I don't see how
>>
>> if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
>> set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);
>>
>> makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is
>
> 9087c37584fb ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain DMA masks")
Reading the changelog again...
I have to say that force_dma_unencrypted() makes way more sense in that
context than force_dma_decrypted(). It still wants a comment.
Linguistical semantics and correctness matters a lot. Consistency is
required as well, but not for the price of ambiguous wording.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists