From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:55 AM > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:48:06PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:33 AM > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:01:25PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > > > > Unless there are objections, I'll go with CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR_DEVICES, > > > > > > What does "DEVICES" mean in this context? > > > > > > You need to think about !virt people too who are already confused by the > > > word "paravisor". :-) > > > > > > > Maybe I misunderstood your previous comment about "Either 1". We can > > avoid "PARAVISOR" entirely by going with two attributes: > > No, I'm fine with CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR. Why would you have to have > CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR_DEVICES? I.e., the string "_DEVICES" appended after > "PARAVISOR". Isn't CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR enough? > Dave -- In v2 of this patch series, you had concerns about CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR being too generic. [1] After some back-and-forth discussion in this thread, Boris is back to preferring it. Can you live with CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR? Just trying to reach consensus ... Michael [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hyperv/Y258BO8ohVtVZvSH@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2/T/#m593853d8094453ad3f1a5552dad995ccc6c019b2
