Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] x86: define IA32_FEATUE_CONTROL.SGX_LC

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
	Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@intel.com>,
	Grzegorz Andrejczuk <grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] x86: define IA32_FEATUE_CONTROL.SGX_LC
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:38:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171129153815.mkjncw3t22sser3c@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171128222141.pljpvoou7bglbzid@linux.intel.com>

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.

I ended up with FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WR. I think that is fairly
reasonable name for bit 17.

/Jarkko