Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 03/11] x86/cpufeatures: Add TDX Guest CPU feature | Date | Thu, 14 Oct 2021 01:02:19 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, Oct 13 2021 at 15:28, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote: > On 10/13/21 2:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> So this ends up in doing: >>> >>> use(); >>> init(); >>> >>> Can you spot what's wrong with that? >>> >>> That's a clear violation of common sense and is simply not going to >>> happen. Why? If you think about deep defensive programming then use() >>> will look like this: >>> >>> use() >>> { >>> assert(initialized); >>> } >>> >>> which is not something made up. It's a fundamental principle of >>> programming and some languages enforce that for very good reasons. >>> >>> Just because it can be done in C is no justification. >> Oh, I heartily agree. >> >>> What's wrong with: >>> >>> x86_64_start_kernel() >>> >>> tdx_early_init(); >>> >>> copy_bootdata(); >>> >>> tdx_late_init(); >>> >>> Absolutely nothing. It's clear, simple and well defined. >> I like simple more than anyone, so sure, I'd prefer that a lot more. >> >> And so the options parsing would need to happen early using, say, >> cmdline_find_option() or so, like sme_enable() does. > > Since in tdx_early_init() all we are going to do is to initialize > "tdx_guest_detected" using cpuid call, shall we name it > tdx_guest_cpuid_init()? (similar to sme_enable call in AMD)
How is that similar?
Just chose a name which makes sense in the overall scheme. I surely care about naming convetions, but what I care more about is correctness.
Whether it ends up being named
tdx_enable() - to match the SME muck
or
tdx_detect()
or whatever makes sense does not really matter. As long as it makes sense. That's bikeshed painting realm.
Coming back to your suggestion 'tdx_guest_cpuid_init()'. Just sit back and think about what that name says:
tdx_guest_cpuid_init()
For the uniformed reader this says:
If tdx guest then initialize CPUID
which is obviously not what you want to express, right?
So, naming matters but you are free to chose something which makes sense.
Thanks,
tglx
| |