[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25be3068-be13-a451-86d4-ff4cc12ddb23@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:29:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kalra, Ashish" <Ashish.Kalra@....com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"slp@...hat.com" <slp@...hat.com>,
"pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com"
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com" <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
"tobin@....com" <tobin@....com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"Roth, Michael" <Michael.Roth@....com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"marcorr@...gle.com" <marcorr@...gle.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"alpergun@...gle.com" <alpergun@...gle.com>,
"dgilbert@...hat.com" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 05/49] x86/sev: Add RMP entry lookup helpers
On 6/22/22 07:22, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
> As I replied previously on the same subject: Architectural implies
> that it is defined in the APM and shouldn't change in such a way as
> to not be backward compatible. I probably think the wording here
> should be architecture independent or more precisely platform
> independent.
Yeah, arch-independent and non-architectural are quite different concepts.
At Intel, at least, when someone says "not architectural" mean that the
behavior is implementation-specific. That, combined with the
model/family/stepping gave me the wrong impression about what was going on.
Some more clarity would be greatly appreciated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists