On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 10:20:47PM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote: >On 3/9/2025 8:49 PM, Chao Gao wrote: >> >> It was suggested by Sean [1]. >... >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/ZTf5wPKXuHBQk0AN@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >But, you're defining a kernel "dynamic" feature while introducing a >"guest-only" xfeature concept. Both seem to be mixed together with this >patch. Why not call it as a guest-only feature? That's what Sean was >suggesting, no? Yes. I agree that we should call it as a guest-only feature. That's also why I included a note in this patch below the "---" to seek feedback on the naming: I am tempted to rename XFEATURE_MASK_KERNEL_DYNAMIC to XFEATURE_MASK_GUEST_ONLY. But I am not sure if this was discussed and rejected. Thanks for confirming that the renaming is necessary.
