On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 01:53:09PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote: >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. Hi Chang, I dug through the history and found a discussion about the naming at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/893ac578-baaf-4f4f-96ee-e012dfc073a8@xxxxxxxxx/#t I think I should revise the changelog to call out why 'DYNAMIC' is preferred over 'GUEST' and reference that discussion.
