[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aWiGA7sOPEs+7ifs@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:15:31 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, reinette.chatre@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
kai.huang@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, sagis@...gle.com,
vannapurve@...gle.com, paulmck@...nel.org, nik.borisov@...e.com,
Farrah Chen <farrah.chen@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kas@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] x86/virt/seamldr: Install a new TDX Module
> static int do_seamldr_install_module(void *params)
> {
> + struct tdx_module_args args = { .rcx = __pa(params) };
Is it better we put the definition, or at least the value assignment in
case TDP_CPU_INSTALL? This pattern always appears here for a seamcall
wrapper but this function is far more complex than that.
And the .rcx = __pa(params) also confuse me a bit. Better we name it
e.g. seamldr_params which looks reasonable for seamcall arguments.
> enum tdp_state newstate, curstate = TDP_START;
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> bool primary;
> @@ -297,6 +302,10 @@ static int do_seamldr_install_module(void *params)
> if (primary)
> ret = tdx_module_shutdown();
> break;
> + case TDP_CPU_INSTALL:
> + scoped_guard(raw_spinlock, &seamldr_lock)
> + ret = seamldr_call(P_SEAMLDR_INSTALL, &args);
> + break;
> default:
> break;
> }
> --
> 2.47.3
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists