[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb7e2ef2-29aa-4fef-b13e-42a517e2be21@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 17:05:00 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.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 9/3/2021 5:00 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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?
It's not.
>
> Or, should we stick to the two-class taxonomy (#VE-inducing and not)
> that I suggested in my replacement changelog?
Seems fine.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists