[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <645f6e73-1211-5ee2-07f7-cf4023358706@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:44:48 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
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>
Cc: Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] x86/tdx: Add Intel ARCH support to
cc_platform_has()
On 9/16/21 11:35 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cc_platform.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cc_platform.c
> @@ -10,11 +10,16 @@
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/cc_platform.h>
> #include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
> +#include <linux/processor.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/intel_cc_platform.h>
>
> bool cc_platform_has(enum cc_attr attr)
> {
> if (sme_me_mask)
> return amd_cc_platform_has(attr);
> + else if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> + return intel_cc_platform_has(attr);
>
> return false;
> }
How did this end up out of line? This means that if you compile-time
enable support for even *one* "cc" platform, you can't optimize the
calls away. This ends up being at *LEAST* two calls, just to get an
unconditional "false". That just seems silly.
I know this is a comment more about the cc_platform_has() series that
this one, but this compounds the problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists