[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210402154458.GI28499@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:44:58 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH 04/13] x86/sev-snp: define page state change
VMGEXIT structure
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:34AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> I guess I was trying to keep it in consistent with sev-es.h macro
> definitions in which the command is used before the fields. In next
> version, I will use the msb to lsb ordering.
Yes pls. And then you could fix the sev-es.h macro too, in a prepatch
maybe or in the same one, to do the same so that when reading the GHCB
doc, it maps directly to the macros.
> IIRC, the spec structure has uint<width>_t, so I used it as-is. No
> strong reason for using it. I will switch to u64 type in the next version.
Yeah, the uint* things are in the C spec but we don't need this
definition outside the kernel, right?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists