[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230825233558.xzqukr3vbccii7f4@box>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 02:35:58 +0300
From: kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, isaku.yamahata@...el.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
n.borisov.lkml@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/12] x86/tdx: Make TDX_HYPERCALL asm similar to
TDX_MODULE_CALL
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 11:02:01PM +1200, Kai Huang wrote:
> + /*
> + * Failure of __tdcall_hypercall() indicates a failure of the TDVMCALL
> + * mechanism itself and that something has gone horribly wrong with
> + * the TDX module. __tdx_hypercall_failed() never returns.
> + */
> + if (__tdcall_hypercall(TDG_VP_VMCALL, &margs))
> + __tdx_hypercall_failed();
Do we even need __tdx_hypercall_failed() anymore? Just call panic()
directly, no?
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists