[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHbDk8d1sqsNaJmGLkpjyXyHBH=9BWSh8XOZCAKu8vvFAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 10:03:33 -0800
From: Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Michael Sterritt <sterritt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/7] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request's fw_err
>
> Why not make it a u64 directly and be done with it?
>
> ---
I was operating under the assumption that kvm: sev: patches should
only touch kvm, and virt: coco: sev-guest should only touch sev-guest.
If you're okay with a patch that changes both areas at the same time,
then I could do that.
--
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists