[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8886298-83fa-212e-ab3a-5e5b21a7ab6c@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 08:44:48 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: "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>,
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 5/12/21 6:08 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> 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.
> But why? What good does the additional level of inderection brings?
>
> It's like saying arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c shouldn't have anything AMD
> or Intel specific. If a function can cover both vendors I don't see a
> point for additinal complexity.
Because the code is already separate. You're actually going to some
trouble to move the SEV-specific code and then combine it with the
TDX-specific code.
Anyway, please just give it a shot. Should take all of ten minutes. If
it doesn't work out in practice, fine. You'll have a good paragraph for
the changelog.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists