> > > >
> > > > To support virtual EPC, add a new misc device /dev/sgx_virt_epc to SGX
> > > > core/driver to allow userspace (Qemu) to allocate "raw" EPC, and use it as
> > > > "virtual EPC" for guest. Obviously, unlike EPC allocated for host SGX driver,
> > > > virtual EPC allocated via /dev/sgx_virt_epc doesn't have enclave associated,
> > > > and how virtual EPC is used by guest is compeletely controlled by guest's SGX
> > > > software.
> > >
> > > I think that /dev/sgx_vepc would be a clear enough name for the device. This
> > > text has now a bit confusing "terminology" related to this.
> >
> > /dev/sgx_virt_epc may be clearer from userspace's perspective, for instance,
> > if people see /dev/sgx_vepc, they may have to think about what it is,
> > while /dev/sgx_virt_epc they may not.
> >
> > But I don't have strong objection here. Does anyone has anything to say here?
>
> It's already an abberevation to start with, why leave it halfways?
>
> Especially when three remaining words have been shrunk to single
> characters ('E', 'P' and 'C').
>
I have expressed my opinion above. And as I said I don't have strong objection
here. I'll change to /dev/sgx_vepc if no one opposes.
