Re: [XEN PATCH v4 01/14] x86: introduce AMD-V and Intel VT-x Kconfig options

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10.07.2024 12:52, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
> 10.07.24 13:28, Jan Beulich:
>> On 10.07.2024 12:21, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
>>> 09.07.24 10:11, Jan Beulich:
>>>> On 09.07.2024 07:45, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
>>>>> From: Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduce two new Kconfig options, SVM and VMX, to allow code
>>>>> specific to each virtualization technology to be separated and, when not
>>>>> required, stripped.
>>>>> CONFIG_SVM will be used to enable virtual machine extensions on platforms 
>>>>> that
>>>>> implement the AMD Virtualization Technology (AMD-V).
>>>>> CONFIG_VMX will be used to enable virtual machine extensions on platforms 
>>>>> that
>>>>> implement the Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel VT-x).
>>>>>
>>>>> Both features depend on HVM support.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since, at this point, disabling any of them would cause Xen to not 
>>>>> compile,
>>>>> the options are enabled by default if HVM and are not selectable by the 
>>>>> user.
>>>>>
>>>>> No functional change intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <Sergiy_Kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> changes in v3:
>>>>>    - tag added
>>>>
>>>> And then removed again in v4? My prior ack stands, but - as before - 
>>>> conditional
>>>> upon us being certain that we want to go with the ambiguous ...
>>>>
>>>>> changes in v2:
>>>>>    - simplify kconfig expression to def_bool HVM
>>>>>    - keep file list in Makefile in alphabetical order
>>>>> changes in v1:
>>>>>    - change kconfig option name AMD_SVM/INTEL_VMX -> SVM/VMX
>>>>
>>>> ... result of this change (firmly ambiguous for SVM, latently for VMX).
>>>
>>> I've put my thoughts about naming in the series' cover letter, however
>>> I'm not strongly preferring current naming and if it finds no advocates
>>> I'll rename it in next series.
>>
>> Just to clarify: Did anyone ask for the name change done in v1? If so,
>> maybe that request cam with some justification?
> 
> yes, that request came from you:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/e29e375f-3d30-0eb1-7e28-b93f2d831b43@xxxxxxxx/

Hmm, how unfortunate. I definitely want to take back that comment, for the
reason given (in context) above. I'm sorry for the back and forth then, also
to you, Xenia.

Jan