Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: TDX: Remove redundant definitions of TDX_TD_ATTR_*

[Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>]

On 7/8/2025 10:44 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
>> On Tue, 2025-07-08 at 07:03 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
>>>> index c539c2e6109f..efb7d589b672 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
>>>> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ void tdh_vp_wr_failed(struct vcpu_tdx *tdx, char *uclass,
>>>> char *op, u32 field,
>>>>    	pr_err("TDH_VP_WR[%s.0x%x]%s0x%llx failed: 0x%llx\n", uclass,
>>>> field, op, val, err);
>>>>    }
>>>>    
>>>> -#define KVM_SUPPORTED_TD_ATTRS (TDX_TD_ATTR_SEPT_VE_DISABLE)
>>>> +#define KVM_SUPPORTED_TD_ATTRS (TDX_ATTR_SEPT_VE_DISABLE)
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to rename KVM_SUPPORTED_TD_ATTRS to
>>> KVM_SUPPORTED_TDX_ATTRS?
>>> The names from common code lack the TD qualifier, and I think it'd be helpful
>>> for
>>> readers to have have TDX in the name (even though I agree "TD" is more
>>> precise).
>>
>> It's useful to know that these are per-TD attributes and not per-TDX module.
>> Especially for TDX_TD_ATTR_DEBUG. I kind of prefer the KVM naming scheme that is
>> removed in this patch.
> 
> Heh, as does Xiaoyao, and me too.  I thought I was just being nitpicky :-)
> 
> Though in that case, I think I'd prefer KVM_SUPPORTED_TDX_TD_ATTRS.

To me, since the MACRO is only used inside kvm/vmx/tdx.c, it's OK 
without the _TDX_ prefix.

However, doing the rename is simple. So I'm going to rename it in a 
separate patch in the v2 unless being told unnecessary.