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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10.07.2024 12:21, 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?

Jan