From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:34287 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726663AbgCSXyg (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:54:36 -0400 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted" In-Reply-To: <20200319174254.GE13073@zn.tnic> References: <20200317111822.GA15609@zn.tnic> <20200319101657.GB13073@zn.tnic> <20200319102011.GA3617@lst.de> <20200319102834.GC13073@zn.tnic> <8d6d3b6c-7e4e-7d9e-3e19-38f7d4477c72@arm.com> <20200319112054.GD13073@zn.tnic> <878sjw5k9u.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200319174254.GE13073@zn.tnic> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87pnd752b6.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Robin Murphy , Christoph Hellwig , lkml , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Marek Szyprowski , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Tom Lendacky Borislav Petkov 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