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 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977DFC369C2 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1u7EFQ-0002tt-Qn; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:05:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1u7EFJ-0002p7-H2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:05:09 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.12]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1u7EFG-0007M4-6O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:05:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1745330706; x=1776866706; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=eD3/9iW0ld81eZPY/Axle2N7wEZSpRcFe9aQKrt1bj0=; b=Z6G184j6I5EEPXofmwA6itGIXz64rIi9tUOh9GkaRGdp3moaGBGHFLvm wP7VDZpUElvOcnC71Gb6McNLK9DNsMTG55MQkJoBsDFuEZQt3j2+Cm5EQ khYPzLbsBNxjqyqSBEX89wAhmnOim17AIGw7AqzCcP4dJPBy6o6uQ+pZS YNEU9jsb3evOwI1/lVrhCZB0fEkn9tUansTABQs01pRMdT33E2yq7IesF 1aaxGlKQt1IUdu2qSKGjtSd6Fc6GcL++mrqfctJj2Wv9wZtmJ0KoCClaJ cltYjXIq+0e8skqouMTuu50gIrrWr5mV7uD39iti1hLeD4cTi/rN7Dxv+ Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: bY0Weo1eSA+VNkw5S4bPwQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: bGXD8WzSRS2PYPt14+TeIQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11411"; a="50719801" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,231,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="50719801" Received: from orviesa008.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.148]) by fmvoesa106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Apr 2025 07:05:02 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: m3xQIYq/T5S5o/blpmfaAQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: mbixgD6VSnSBpriUInJfxA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,231,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="132976086" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by orviesa008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2025 07:05:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:25:54 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= Cc: Xiaoyao Li , Paolo Bonzini , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Markus Armbruster , Francesco Lavra , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Rick Edgecombe Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 02/55] i386: Introduce tdx-guest object Message-ID: References: <20250401130205.2198253-1-xiaoyao.li@intel.com> <20250401130205.2198253-3-xiaoyao.li@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.12; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -47 X-Spam_score: -4.8 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.411, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org > > > index 000000000000..f3b725336161 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/target/i386/kvm/tdx.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ > > > + > > > +#ifndef QEMU_I386_TDX_H > > > +#define QEMU_I386_TDX_H > > > > I386_TDX_H is enough... the QEMU prefix is rarely seen in the whole > > project. > > IMHO having a QEMU_ prefix here is "best practice", so don't remove it. > > That lots of other QEMU code doesn't follow best practice is unfortunate. Thanks, now I see!