On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 03:13:11PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote: > On 7/9/2025 2:58 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > Could we rename "policy" to "attributes", or more precisely > > > > "tdAttributes"? It's not intuitive for users to connect "policy" with > > > > "TD attributes". > > > Will use "attributes" as QAPI exposes "attributes". > > IMHO 'policy' is preferrable as it is consistent with terminology we > > already use in SEV guests. > > The only advantage we can get is that both SEV and TDX guest have a filed > named "policy". > > But the bits of it have entire different meaning for SEV and TDX. Nothing > can be shared at all. So why not name it with different name, and people get > they are different things.
You're ignoring the benefit to applications above libvirt, which avoid having two different fields which serve the same purpose, but with arbitrarily different names. Yes, the values you put in the bitfields are different for SEV vs TDX, but the conceptual need is the same, and libvirt aims to use common terminology for equivalent concepts across technologies. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
