Re: [edk2-devel] 回复: [PATCH V4 00/10] Introduce Lazy-accept for Tdx guest

[Dionna Glaze via groups.io]

> > Min:
> >   I understand that they are for the different purpose and usage. But, their
> > protocol name are very similar.
> Yes. They do look very similar.
>
> >   If there is no better protocol name, I will also be fine.
> Dionna, what's your thought?
>

The accept_all_unaccepted_memory name came from Ard's suggestion on an
earlier patch series where I was using a Pcd.
We're talking about the name over on the spec bug
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3987#c26

I think that any name concerning unaccepted memory is going to look a
little same-y to others, so it's going to be troublesome if we require
that they all strongly differ in name. I'm not strongly attached to
the name, I just want to be conservative about what the name implies
about the expected overall behavior of the system when that has not
actually been decided upon.

-- 
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#95473): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/95473
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94423128/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-