[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250712150210.GDaHJ48gY0eqzT_zTI@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 17:02:10 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/24] x86/sev: Separate MSR and GHCB based
snp_cpuid() via a callback
On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 09:54:20AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > So it really comes natural to split them into a msr_prot and a ghcb_prot
> > variant. If we added a separate patch ontop that does only the renaming, then
> > that would probably be more churn than necessary.
>
> Right, they already are though:
>
> __sev_cpuid_hv_msr() and __sev_cpuid_hv_ghcb()
>
> the first one meaning that the hypervisor is being called using the msr
> protocol and the second one meaning that the hypervisor is being called
> using the ghcb protocol.
>
> That's why I made the comment. Just changing
>
> __sev_cpuid_hv_msr() to __sev_cpuid_msr_prot()
>
> isn't saying anything more in my opinion.
Ok, then let's keep 'em that way. I was reacting to snp_cpuid_hv_no_ghcb()
which is snp_cpuid_hv_msr I guess.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists