[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0bcb46ed-4bdf-9a82-3bdc-2c4d5ffcb627@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 16:25:14 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 27/32] x86/tdx: Exclude Shared bit from __PHYSICAL_MASK
On 5/20/2021 2:28 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>
>
> On 5/20/21 2:23 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Sathya has even mis-typed "tdx" instead of "tdg" this in his own
>> changelogs up to this point. That massively weakens the argument that
>> "tdg" is a good idea.
>
> It is not a typo. But when we did the initial rename from "tdx_" ->
> "tdg_",
> somehow I missed the change log change. That's why I am bit reluctant
> to go for another rename (since we have scan change log, comments and
> code)
> in all the patches.
Yes I agree. If there's another rename it should be after a full review
by all the maintainers. If there is still consensus that a rename is
needed then it can be done then.
And we'll just hope that Sean's brain will get used to tdg_ by then.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists