From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:57538 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726802AbgCSK23 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 06:28:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 11:28:34 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted" Message-ID: <20200319102834.GC13073@zn.tnic> References: <20200317111822.GA15609@zn.tnic> <20200319101657.GB13073@zn.tnic> <20200319102011.GA3617@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200319102011.GA3617@lst.de> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: lkml , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Marek Szyprowski , Robin Murphy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Tom Lendacky On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:20:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I thought we agreed that decrypted is absolutely the wrong term. I don't think we did. At least I don't know where we did that. > So NAK - if you want to change things it needs to go the other way. We are already using "decrypted" everywhere in arch/x86/. Changing that would be a *lot* more churn. And it is just a term, for chrissakes, to denote memory which is not encrypted. And it would make our lifes easier if we had only *two* terms instead of three or more. Especially if the concept we denote with this is a binary one: encrypted memory and *not* encrypted memory. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette