[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250320171619.GOZ9xNY4W54avW2a-u@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:16:19 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] x86/sev: add SVSM vTPM probe/send_command
functions
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 05:03:09PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I can do that, I slightly prefer BIT_ULL() macro, but I don't have a strong
> > opinion on my side.
> > @Borislav since you suggested it, WDYT?
>
> Either goes for me. Sorry for nitpicking that :-) The first comment
> stil applies.
Bit 8 is a lot better than 0x100.
Let's give a better example:
0x0000000008000000
or
BIT_ULL(27)
:-)
While I'm here: I'm guessing I'll route patches 1 and 4 through tip once
they're ready to go and give Jarkko an immutable branch he can base the other
two ontop.
Agreed?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists