Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 May 2021 16:08:21 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common code |
| |
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:23:29PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/10/21 3:19 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote: > > On 5/7/21 2:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> This doesn't seem much like common code to me. It seems like 100% SEV > >> code. Is this really where we want to move it? > > > > Both SEV and TDX code has requirement to enable > > CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED and define force_dma_unencrypted() > > function. > > > > force_dma_unencrypted() is modified by patch titled "x86/tdx: Make DMA > > pages shared" to add TDX guest specific support. > > > > Since both SEV and TDX code uses it, its moved to common file. > > That's not an excuse to have a bunch of AMD (or Intel) feature-specific > code in a file named "common". I'd make an attempt to keep them > separate and then call into the two separate functions *from* the common > function.
But why? What good does the additional level of inderection brings?
It's like saying arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c shouldn't have anything AMD or Intel specific. If a function can cover both vendors I don't see a point for additinal complexity.
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
| |