[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61b9cc00-d514-df77-0a31-88ec35d73456@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:29:33 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
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, ak@...ux.intel.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, bagasdotme@...il.com,
sagis@...gle.com, imammedo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/16] x86/virt/tdx: Implement functions to make
SEAMCALL
The subject here is a bit too specific. This patch isn't just
"implementing functions". There are more than just functions here. The
best subject is probably:
Add SEAMCALL infrastructure
But that's rather generic by necessity because this patch does several
_different_ logical things:
* Wrap TDX_MODULE_CALL so it can be used for SEAMCALLs with host=1
* Add handling to TDX_MODULE_CALL to allow it to handle specifically
host-side error conditions
* Add high-level seamcall() function with actual error handling
It's probably also worth noting that the code that allows "host=1" to be
passed to TDX_MODULE_CALL is dead code in mainline right now. It
probably shouldn't have been merged this way, but oh well.
I don't know that you really _need_ to split this up, but I'm just
pointing out that mashing three different logical things together makes
it hard to write a coherent Subject. But, I've seen worse.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists