[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0be2590c-aad8-0d04-4f14-2081d9b66fbf@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 17:00:39 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
VMware Inc <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/11] x86/tdx: Handle CPUID via #VE
On 9/3/21 4:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It means they are handled by the TDX module, but always have the same
> contents as a native CPU would.
>
> As opposed to leaves that are modified by the TDX module.
Is that distinction important for this patch?
Or, should we stick to the two-class taxonomy (#VE-inducing and not)
that I suggested in my replacement changelog?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists