Re: [RISC-V][tech-os-a-see] [RISC-V] [tech-unprivileged] Direction of Identifying Extensions
Greg Favor
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:02 AM Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...> wrote:
What I'm saying (or at least my leaning) is that discovery methods should use K-V pairs as they do today (with standardized K names desired). Whereas Profiles have a more limited goal of having extension-like names for specific K-V pairs. The latter names are different animals than the former - not only semantically but also in being short not-so-self-descriptive acronyms (not exactly what you want for K names). In short, keep these two areas uncoupled from each other and let each struggle down its own path without getting further delayed by each other.
As Alan mentioned, him and I threw around names like "profentions" (aka profile extensions), although more out of amusement than practical value. Practically speaking they should have a reasonably self-descriptive (yet short-ish) name. Maybe simply "mandate names"? This also avoids any confusion with extension names and with K and V names that would be used in discovery structures. This also covers mandate items that are one sentence behavioral descriptions (of either a behavioral allowance or disallowance). Greg |
|