[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aIv8wZzs1oXDCXSU@google.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:31:13 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Yan Y Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] x86/tdx: Consolidate TDX error handling
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> So STATUS_OPERAND_BUSY() seems like an ok thing to try next for v3 of this
> series at least. Unless anyone has any strong objections ahead of time.
Can you make it IS_TDX_STATUS_OPERAND_BUSY() so that it's obviously a check and
not a statement/value, and to scope it to TDX?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists