On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:53:23PM +1300, Kai Huang wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:51:44 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 1/20/21 3:48 PM, Kai Huang wrote: > > >> Not a big deal either way. I agree that "virt" can be confusing. > > >> > > >> Considering that: > > >> > > >> +config X86_SGX_VIRTUALIZATION > > >> + depends on ... KVM_INTEL > > > It is already in patch 3: Introduce virtual EPC for use by KVM guests: > > > > > > +config X86_SGX_VIRTUALIZATION > > > + bool "Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) Virtualization" > > > + depends on X86_SGX && KVM_INTEL > > > > Right, I'm suggesting that patch 3 should call it: > > > > X86_SGX_KVM > > > > instead of: > > > > X86_SGX_VIRTUALIZATION > > In case we want to change to X86_SGX_KVM, is it more reasonable to put it to > arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig (maybe change to X86_KVM_SGX)? > > Jarkko also mentioned X86_SGX_VEPC, in which case still putting it to > arch/x86/Kconfig looks a better fit. I disagree with myself on that now :-) I think the other suggestions are better. I'm only pursuing 'vepc' for the device name because it follows the pattern used in the other devices. > > Sean, Paolo, > > Do you have comment here? /Jarkko
