On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:06:15AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > >> Let me add another vote from a native English speaker that "unencrypted" is > >> the appropriate term to imply the *absence* of encryption, whereas > >> "decrypted" implies the *reversal* of applied encryption. Even as a non-native speaker I can clearly see the distinction. > >> > >> Naming things is famously hard, for good reason - names are *important* for > >> understanding. Just because a decision was already made one way doesn't > >> mean > >> that that decision was necessarily right. Churning one area to be > >> consistently inaccurate just because it's less work than churning another > >> area to be consistently accurate isn't really the best excuse. > > > > Well, the reason we chose "decrypted" vs something else is so to be as > > different from "encrypted" as possible. If we called it "unencrypted" > > you'd have stuff like: > > > > if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) > > set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << > > page_order);
If you want something with high edit distance from 'encrypted' meaning the opposite there is already 'cleartext' which was designed for this exact purpose. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
