Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Jun 2021 22:08:52 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstractionn |
| |
On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 11:12:57AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote: > cc_has() or protected_guest_has() or prot_guest_has() or protected_boot_has()
Even if I still think it is not optimal, prot_guest_has() seems to be best what we have because protected_guest_has() together with the flag will become just too long to scan at a quick glance. And if you have to do two tests, you'd have to break the line.
> For flag prefix either PR_GUEST_* or CC_*
PR_GUEST_* sounds ok to me.
The "cc" prefix stuff is nice and short but it doesn't say what it means because it is simply too short. And code readability is very important.
I'd say.
Still open for better suggestions though.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |