[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4940a38f-282b-7ce6-4d4c-2db1072ed3ca@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:51:22 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 05/30] x86/tdx: Extend the confidential computing API to
support TDX guests
On 2/24/22 15:54, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
>> Second, why have the global 'td_info' instead of just declaring it on
>> the stack. It is only used within a single function. Having it on the
>> stack is *REALLY* nice because the code ends up looking like:
>>
>> struct foo foo;
>> get_info(&foo);
>> cc_set_bar(foo.bar);
>>
>> The dependencies and scope are just stupidly obvious if you do that.
> Okay, I will rework it with plain gpa_width on stack and get_info(&gpa_width);
> Attributes will be needed after core enabling, so I will drop it from
> here.
I don't mind the 'struct tdx_info' if there's going to be more stuff in
it soon-ish. Having a single member is fine for now. Just make it
clear that the seamcall returns a bunch of stuff and only a subset of it
is used right now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists