[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c27a2132-8fbc-8c02-9c1b-b91336133d61@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 09:06:54 -0700
From: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
marcelo.cerri@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
khalid.elmously@...onical.com, philip.cox@...onical.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] x86/tdx: Add TDX Guest attestation interface
driver
On 5/2/22 5:18 AM, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
>> + ret = __tdx_module_call(TDX_GET_REPORT, virt_to_phys(tdreport),
>> + virt_to_phys(reportdata), 0, 0, NULL);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_debug("TDREPORT TDCALL failed, status:%lx\n",
>> + TDCALL_STATUS_CODE(ret));
> Should we use pr_err instead?
I expect user app will handle this error case and print debug info.
So we don't need to use pr_err.
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists