On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > If you use SNP or TDX check in generic code something is wrong. Abstraction > > is broken somewhere. Generic code doesn't need to know concrete > > implementation. > > That's perhaps because you're thinking that the *actual* coco implementation type > should be hidden away from generic code. But SNP and TDX are pretty different > so we might as well ask for them by their name. > > But I can see why you'd think there might be some abstraction violation there. > > My goal here - even though there might be some bad taste of abstraction > violation here - is simplicity. As expressed a bunch of times already, having > cc_platform *and* X86_FEATURE* things used in relation to coco code can be > confusing. So I'd prefer to avoid that confusion. > > Nothing says anywhere that arch code cannot use cc_platform interfaces. > Absolutely nothing. So for the sake of KISS I'm going in that direction. > > If it turns out later that this was a bad idea and we need to change it, we > can always can. As we do for other interfaces in the kernel. > > If you're still not convinced, I already asked you: > > "Do you have a better idea which is cleaner than what we do now?" > > Your turn. Okay, I've got your point. It is not what I would do, but I don't have sufficient argument to change what is already there. -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
