Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support

[Kai Huang]

> > No objection to omitting "coco".  Though what about using "vmx" and "svm" instead
> > of "tdx" and "sev".
> 
> I'm not dead-set on this but ...
> 
> > We lose the more explicit tie to coco, but it would mirror the
> > sub-directories in arch/x86/kvm/
> 
> ... having them too close in naming to the non-coco stuff, might cause
> confusion when looking at:
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> vs
> 
> arch/x86/virt/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> Instead of having
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> and
> 
> arch/x86/virt/tdx/vmx.c
> 
> That second version differs just the right amount. :-)

Having vmx.c under tdx/ directory looks a little bit strange.

vmx.c seems more like "generic non-KVM host virtualization staff".

> 
> > and would avoid a mess in the scenario where tdx
> > or sev needs to share code with the non-coco side, e.g. I'm guessing TDX will need
> > to do VMXON.
> > 
> >   arch/x86/virt/vmx/
> >   	tdx.c
> > 	vmx.c
> > 
> >   arch/x86/virt/svm/
> >   	sev.c
> > 	sev-es.c
> > 	sev-snp.c
> >   	svm.c
> 
> That will probably be two files too: sev.c and svm.c
> 
> But let's see what the other folks think first...
> 

So if I catch you guys correctly, so far I am heading towards to:

	arch/x86/virt/vmx/
		tdx.c

("vmx/" can be changed if you guys prefers others later).

And I am targeting to use single tdx.c to hold ~2k LoC since looks like single
file is preferred.