[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <03a48573-85b2-f908-f058-205e9aa02787@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:23:55 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: isaku.yamahata@...el.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: isaku.yamahata@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/69] KVM: TDX: add trace point before/after TDX
SEAMCALLs
On 03/07/21 00:04, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
> + trace_kvm_tdx_seamcall_enter(smp_processor_id(), op,
> + rcx, rdx, r8, r9, r10);
> + err = __seamcall(op, rcx, rdx, r8, r9, r10, ex);
> + if (ex)
> + trace_kvm_tdx_seamcall_exit(smp_processor_id(), op, err, ex->rcx,
> + ex->rdx, ex->r8, ex->r9, ex->r10,
> + ex->r11);
> + else
> + trace_kvm_tdx_seamcall_exit(smp_processor_id(), op, err,
> + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
Would it make sense to do the zeroing of ex directly in __seamcall in
case there is an error?
Otherwise looks good.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists