On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:52:53AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Which suggest that the name is not good to start with. Maybe protected
> hardware, system or platform might be a better choice?
Yah, coming up with a proper name here hasn't been easy.
prot_guest_has() is not the first variant.
>From all three things you suggest above, I guess calling it a "platform"
is the closest. As in, this is a confidential computing platform which
provides host and guest facilities etc.
So calling it
confidential_computing_platform_has()
is obviously too long.
ccp_has() clashes with the namespace of drivers/crypto/ccp/ which is
used by the technology too.
coco_platform_has() is too unserious.
So I guess
cc_platform_has()
ain't all that bad.
Unless you have a better idea, ofc.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
