On 10.02.20 13:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> + pr_info("Running as protected virtualization guest.");
>
> /me confused about gluing an informative message to disabling a feature.
>
> Should this actually be a
>
> pr_warn("Protected virtualization not available in protected guests.");
Yes, this is probably better.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (prot_virt_host && !test_facility(158)) {
>> + prot_virt_host = 0;
>> + pr_info("The ultravisor call facility is not available.");
>
> It's somehwhat confusing for a user to requested "prot_virt" and get
> that error message.
>
> pr_warn("Protected virtualization not supported by the hardware".);
The name is still in flux, but we can change that later on. Will use your
variant.
