[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1fbdfffa-ac43-419c-8d96-c5bb1bdac73f@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:59:47 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, Yan Y Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] x86/tdx: Consolidate TDX error handling
On 6/26/25 08:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> No, I was thinking:
>
> if (IS_TDX_ERR_OPERAND_BUSY(err))
>
> e.g. to so that it looks like IS_ERR(), which is a familiar pattern.
That would be a more more compelling if IS_ERR() worked on integers. It
works on pointers, so I'm not sure it's a pattern we want to apply to
integers here.
I kind of hate all of this. I'd kinda prefer that we just shove the TDX
error codes as far up into the helpers as possible rather than making
them easier to deal with in random code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists