[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whjvmBiZ=oMnR-R9rqzEPnGCaU7dNLkY1RHXwjRCAR5YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 21:34:12 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Trusted Security Manager (TSM) updates for 6.16
On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 17:59, <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> ...to receive shared infrastructure updates for confidential computing.
Do we have a sane name for this? The pull request calls it "TSM" and
writes it out as "trusted security manager", your intro calls it
"shared infrastructure updates for confidential computing", and the
MAINTAINER entry calls it "trusted security module" (note the
different word for the 'M').
Making things even worse, Intel also uses "TSM", but in Intel docs,
the "T" stands not for "Trusted", but for "TEE", which in turn is a
recursive TLA meaning "Trusted Execution Environment".
Yes, I've complained about odd TLA's before, but TSM really takes the
odd to a new level.
I've pulled this, and I've used "TSM" in the pull message, but I
really think this TLA disease needs to end.
Let's have a rule that TLA's are ok _only_ for things that
(a) go back at least four decades
(b) have a basically unambiguous meaning in the industry (let's
ignore IBM that made up their own naming)
(c) when you google them, they give relevant results
So, for example, talking about a "TLB" entry is ok by all three rules,
and a TTY is similarly not a bad word.
"TSM" fulfills _none_ of these.
Please? I know you work for Intel and you probably signed some
paperwork saying that a certain percentage of words you use have to be
TLA's, but please ... We can do better.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists