Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] x86/virt/tdx: Stop treating tdx_global_metadata.h as auto-generated

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>]

>> Today the header that holds these structures is generated by an
>> out-of-tree script from a JSON file listing all of the TDX module's
>> metadata.  That made it trivial to add a new field, but everything
>> else suffered for it:
>> 
>>   - The header is opaque to anyone who doesn't have the script and
>>     the JSON file handy, and the "Automatically generated" tag tells
>>     reviewers their edits will be clobbered.
>>   - The script ships outside the tree, so reproducing changes
>>     requires fetching it from a mailing list link.
>>   - The structures are short and stable; the script's value over
>>     a hand-edited header is small.
>
>Well, and the big one: after we started doing this, the "ABI Definitions
>for Intel® TDX" was declared to be not an ABI. So, even if we code to
>the JSON, there's no guarantee the JSON will be stable.
>
><sigh>
>
>Honestly that's what matters. The script and all the other fluff is just
>noise.

Thanks for this. So the key point is that auto-generating rests on a
premise: the JSON is the ABI and stays stable. Then regenerating gives
you something you can trust without re-checking. That premise isn't true
now, so we should stop auto-generating.

One thing I'd like to confirm: is the concern that the JSON could be wrong
about what modules actually implement, or just that there's no commitment
to keep the JSON stable? or both?

>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
>
>So, I'm curious: What made you feel OK to sign-off on this? I'm not
>judging. I'm open-minded on this. All I know is *I* wasn't ready to
>sign-off on this.
>
>I really want to know what your thought process was.

The idea and the implementation looks good to me, and I thought they were
ready for on-list review.  As the person who modified and posted the
series, my reading of submitting-patches.rst is that I need to sign off
_any_ patches I posted.