[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5913c603-2505-7865-4f8e-2cbceba8bd12@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 13:34:47 -0600
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....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 1/3/22 1:10 PM, Venu Busireddy wrote:
> 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?
>
Will incorporate your changes in v9. And will see what others say about it.
-Brijesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists