[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9xQw8QpRKk26G6R@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 19:30:43 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 06:16:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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)
>
> :-)
Sure, I'm fine with using BIT_ULL() :-)
>
> 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?
Works for me.
>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists