[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbcb688c-5aa0-eeb1-192a-45edaccc2f32@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:23:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common
code
On 5/10/21 3:19 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> On 5/7/21 2:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> This doesn't seem much like common code to me. It seems like 100% SEV
>> code. Is this really where we want to move it?
>
> Both SEV and TDX code has requirement to enable
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED and define force_dma_unencrypted()
> function.
>
> force_dma_unencrypted() is modified by patch titled "x86/tdx: Make DMA
> pages shared" to add TDX guest specific support.
>
> Since both SEV and TDX code uses it, its moved to common file.
That's not an excuse to have a bunch of AMD (or Intel) feature-specific
code in a file named "common". I'd make an attempt to keep them
separate and then call into the two separate functions *from* the common
function.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists