Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:05:27 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv3.1 2/32] x86/coco: Explicitly declare type of confidential computing platform |
| |
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 02:44:51PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > Hm. Isn't 'vendor' too generic? It may lead to name conflict in the > future.
It's a static variable visible only in this unit.
> What is wrong with cc_vendor here? I noticed that you don't like name of > a variable to match type name. Why?
Because when I look at the name I don't know whether it is the type or a variable of that type. Sure, sure, it depends on the context but let's make it as non-ambiguous as possible.
> Currently cc_platform_has() relies on hv_is_isolation_supported() which > checks for !HV_ISOLATION_TYPE_NONE. This is direct transfer to the new > scheme. It might be wrong, but it is not regression.
I didn't say it is a regression - I'm just wondering why.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |