[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ca2dd51-c30a-c400-146a-8079ac4526c6@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 11:06:05 -0500
From: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: corbet@....net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
hpa@...or.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mchehab+samsung@...nel.org,
changbin.du@...el.com, namit@...are.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, asteinhauser@...gle.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, jan.kiszka@...mens.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, steven.price@....com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterx@...hat.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, logang@...tatee.com,
thellstrom@...are.com, aarcange@...hat.com, justin.he@....com,
robin.murphy@....com, ira.weiny@...el.com, keescook@...omium.org,
jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
vineela.tummalapalli@...el.com, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
sam@...nborg.org, acme@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arch/x86: Rename config
X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS to generic x86
On 5/7/20 10:16 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/05/20 16:44, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> You could add a new option (X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS) which is
>>> def_bool X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS and avoiding the prompt line.
>>> Soo it is selected based on the old option and the user isn't bother. A
>>> few cycles later you could remove intel option and add prompt to other.
>>> But still little work for…
>> That does sound viable, if we decide it's all worth it.
>>
>> So, for now my preference would be to change the prompt, but leave the
>> CONFIG_ naming in place.
>
> I agree.
>
> What's in a name? An Intel rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
How about X86_MPK? Or I will use already proposed name
X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS.
> Oh wait... :)
>
> Paolo
>
>> If we decide that transitioning the config is
>> the right thing (I don't feel super strongly either way), let's use
>> Sebastian's trick to avoid the Kconfig prompts.
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists