[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YdNKIOg+9LAaDDF6@dt>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 13:10:24 -0600
From: Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/40] x86/compressed/64: detect/setup SEV/SME
features earlier in boot
On 2021-12-15 15:22:57 -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:38:55PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > But it is hard to discuss anything without patches so we can continue
> > the topic with concrete patches. But this unification is not
> > super-pressing so it can go ontop of the SNP pile.
>
> Yah, it's all theoretical at this point. Didn't mean to derail things
> though. I mainly brought it up to suggest that Venu's original approach of
> returning the encryption bit via a pointer argument might make it easier to
> expand it for other purposes in the future, and that naming it for that
> future purpose might encourage future developers to focus their efforts
> there instead of potentially re-introducing duplicate code.
>
> But either way it's simple enough to rework things when we actually
> cross that bridge. So totally fine with saving all of this as a future
> follow-up, or picking up either of Venu's patches for now if you'd still
> prefer.
So, what is the consensus? Do you want me to submit a patch after the
SNP changes go upstream? Or, do you want to roll in one of the patches
that I posted earlier?
Venu
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists