On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:00:03PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > What about SGX_LC_ENABLE? The title in the MSR section of the SDM is > > "SGX Launch Control Enable", and it's more consistent with the other > > bits defined in feature control. I'd also prefer that name for the > > actual #define too, SGX_LAUNCH_CONTROL_ENABLE is overly verbose IMO. > > This is a bit ugly name but it is also very clear: > > FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LEPUBKEYHASH_WRITE_ENABLE > > Just pushed update to the le branch. SGX_LC_ENABLE is a nice short name > but it does not reflect the semantics. > > Maybe we could combine these and name it as > > FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WRITE_ENABLE > > It is not as ugly and is very clear what it does. I ended up with FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WR. I think that is fairly reasonable name for bit 17. /Jarkko
