[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUOVzLh4V+ZVB+k/@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:06:52 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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>,
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 Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:44:48AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.
Posting here too for the wider audience - follow this thread pls:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/9d4fc3f8ea7b325aaa1879beab1286876f45d450.1631141919.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists