From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0B0C4332B for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 23:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8909C20740 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 23:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727232AbgCSXyg (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:54:36 -0400 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 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jF4z5-0002E7-Dg; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:56 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4DD6B100375; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner 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 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 X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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