[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18323d11-146f-c418-e8f0-addb2b8adb19@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:38:36 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
arnd@...db.de, bp@...en8.de, brijesh.singh@....com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
haiyangz@...rosoft.com, hpa@...or.com, jane.chu@...cle.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, kys@...rosoft.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, tony.luck@...el.com,
wei.liu@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/tdx: Support hypercalls for TDX guests on Hyper-V
On 11/21/22 11:51, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> __tdx_hypercall() doesn't work for a TDX guest running on Hyper-V,
> because Hyper-V uses a different calling convention, so add the
> new function __tdx_ms_hv_hypercall().
Other than R10 being variable here and fixed for __tdx_hypercall(), this
looks *EXACTLY* the same as __tdx_hypercall(), or at least a strict
subset of what __tdx_hypercall() can do.
Did I miss something?
Another way of saying this: It seems like you could do this with a new
version of _tdx_hypercall() (and all in C) instead of a new
__tdx_hypercall().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists