All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	x86@kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pnd752b6.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200319174254.GE13073@zn.tnic>

Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> TBH, I don't see how
>> 
>> 	if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
>> 		set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);
>>
>> makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is
>
> 9087c37584fb ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain DMA masks")

Reading the changelog again...

I have to say that force_dma_unencrypted() makes way more sense in that
context than force_dma_decrypted(). It still wants a comment.

Linguistical semantics and correctness matters a lot. Consistency is
required as well, but not for the price of ambiguous wording.

Thanks,

        tglx


_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pnd752b6.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200319174254.GE13073@zn.tnic>

Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> TBH, I don't see how
>> 
>> 	if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
>> 		set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);
>>
>> makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is
>
> 9087c37584fb ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain DMA masks")

Reading the changelog again...

I have to say that force_dma_unencrypted() makes way more sense in that
context than force_dma_decrypted(). It still wants a comment.

Linguistical semantics and correctness matters a lot. Consistency is
required as well, but not for the price of ambiguous wording.

Thanks,

        tglx

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pnd752b6.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200319174254.GE13073@zn.tnic>

Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> TBH, I don't see how
>> 
>> 	if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
>> 		set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);
>>
>> makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is
>
> 9087c37584fb ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain DMA masks")

Reading the changelog again...

I have to say that force_dma_unencrypted() makes way more sense in that
context than force_dma_decrypted(). It still wants a comment.

Linguistical semantics and correctness matters a lot. Consistency is
required as well, but not for the price of ambiguous wording.

Thanks,

        tglx



  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-19 23:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-17 11:18 [PATCH] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted" Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 11:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 11:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 11:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 20:35 ` Dave Hansen
2020-03-17 20:35   ` Dave Hansen
2020-03-17 20:35   ` Dave Hansen
2020-03-17 21:06   ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 21:06     ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 21:06     ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 21:24     ` Dave Hansen
2020-03-17 21:24       ` Dave Hansen
2020-03-17 21:24       ` Dave Hansen
2020-03-17 21:31       ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 21:31         ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 21:31         ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-17 21:34       ` Joe Perches
2020-03-17 21:34         ` Joe Perches
2020-03-17 21:34         ` Joe Perches
2020-03-17 22:01     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-17 22:01       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-17 22:01       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-17 22:01       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-17 23:16 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:16   ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:16   ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:16   ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:51 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:51   ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:51   ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-17 23:51   ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-19 10:16 ` [PATCH -v2] " Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 10:16   ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 10:16   ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 10:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-19 10:20     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-19 10:20     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-19 10:28     ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 10:28       ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 10:28       ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 11:06       ` Robin Murphy
2020-03-19 11:06         ` Robin Murphy
2020-03-19 11:06         ` Robin Murphy
2020-03-19 11:20         ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 11:20           ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 11:20           ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 17:25           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 17:25             ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 17:25             ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 17:42             ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 17:42               ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 17:42               ` Borislav Petkov
2020-03-19 23:53               ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2020-03-19 23:53                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 23:53                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 21:59             ` Michal Suchánek
2020-03-19 21:59               ` Michal Suchánek
2020-03-19 21:59               ` Michal Suchánek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87pnd752b6.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.