[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <805fb0fb-84e2-41ac-ed02-3470fd8c63fe@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:12:53 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, chao.gao@...el.com, bagasdotme@...il.com,
sagis@...gle.com, imammedo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/20] x86/tdx: Define TDX supported page sizes as
macros
On 11/20/22 18:52, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> On 11/20/22 4:26 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * TDX supported page sizes (4K/2M/1G).
>> + *
>> + * Those values are part of the TDX module ABI. Do not change them.
> It would be better if you include specification version and section
> title.
I actually think TDX code, in general, spends way too much time quoting
and referring to the spec.
Also, why quote the version? Do we quote the SDM version when we add
new SDM-defined architecture?
It's just busywork that bloats the kernel and adds noise. Please focus
on adding value to the comments that came from your brain and not just
pasting boilerplate gunk over and over.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists