[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1483ed2e0b61e8d01be7002b04807275f7748ea4.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 16:53:20 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>
CC: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>, "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com" <tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] KVM: TDX: Initialize KVM supported capabilities
when module setup
On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 11:25 +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * PT and CET can be exposed to TD guest regardless of KVM's XSS, PT
> > + * and, CET support.
> > + */
> > + kvm_supported |= XFEATURE_MASK_PT | XFEATURE_MASK_CET_USER |
> > + XFEATURE_MASK_CET_KERNEL;
>
> I prefer to add PT/CET bits in separate patches because PT/CET related MSRs
> may
> need save/restore. Putting them in separate patches can give us the chance to
> explain this in detail.
I think we should just drop them from the base series to save required testing.
We can leave them for the future.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists