From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752386AbdK1WVm (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:21:42 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:26948 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751686AbdK1WVl (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:21:41 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,468,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="154163566" Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:21:41 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Sean Christopherson Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov , Janakarajan Natarajan , Paolo Bonzini , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Kyle Huey , Vikas Shivappa , Piotr Luc , Grzegorz Andrejczuk Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] x86: define IA32_FEATUE_CONTROL.SGX_LC Message-ID: <20171128222141.pljpvoou7bglbzid@linux.intel.com> References: <20171125193132.24321-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20171125193132.24321-5-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1511889371.9392.58.camel@intel.com> <1511893683.9392.100.camel@intel.com> <20171128205324.pqojyfqbet3h7re4@linux.intel.com> <20171128212407.lky32cdghxqsxd4e@linux.intel.com> <1511904794.18982.7.camel@intel.com> <20171128215513.qp2bs6462eq4pkz4@linux.intel.com> <1511906403.18982.17.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1511906403.18982.17.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:00:03PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > What about SGX_LC_ENABLE?  The title in the MSR section of the SDM is > "SGX Launch Control Enable", and it's more consistent with the other > bits defined in feature control.  I'd also prefer that name for the > actual #define too, SGX_LAUNCH_CONTROL_ENABLE is overly verbose IMO. This is a bit ugly name but it is also very clear: FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LEPUBKEYHASH_WRITE_ENABLE Just pushed update to the le branch. SGX_LC_ENABLE is a nice short name but it does not reflect the semantics. Maybe we could combine these and name it as FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WRITE_ENABLE It is not as ugly and is very clear what it does. /Jarkko