Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 19/26] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap() | From | Tom Lendacky <> | Date | Wed, 5 Jan 2022 08:16:49 -0600 |
| |
On 1/4/22 6:43 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/4/22 4:31 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:36:06PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> @@ -57,7 +58,6 @@ typedef struct { unsigned long iopte; } >>> typedef struct { unsigned long pmd; } pmd_t; >>> typedef struct { unsigned long pgd; } pgd_t; >>> typedef struct { unsigned long ctxd; } ctxd_t; >>> -typedef struct { unsigned long pgprot; } pgprot_t; >>> typedef struct { unsigned long iopgprot; } iopgprot_t; >>> >>> #define pte_val(x) ((x).pte) >>> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ typedef unsigned long iopte_t; >>> typedef unsigned long pmd_t; >>> typedef unsigned long pgd_t; >>> typedef unsigned long ctxd_t; >>> -typedef unsigned long pgprot_t; >>> typedef unsigned long iopgprot_t; >>> >>> #define pte_val(x) (x) >> >> Any arch that use STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS hacks will get broken if compiled >> without the define (as sparc by default). > > My read of STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS was that "typedef unsigned long > pgprot_t" produces better code, but "typedef struct { unsigned long > pgprot; } pgprot_t;" produces better type checking. > > I just compiled these patches on sparc with no issues. > > ... >> Is it the way to go we want? > > I _think_ this was all a result of some review feedback from Tom > Lendacky about where the encryption-modifying pgprot helpers got placed > in the code. I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not quite sure > that this is worth the trouble. > > I'd be curious what Tom thinks now that he's gotten a peek at what it's > going to take to address his concerns.
I have vague memories of pgprot_t and what a pain it could be, which is why my feedback suggested putting it in cc_platform.c, but said there might be issues :)
I'm fine with it living somewhere else, just thought it would be nice to have everything consolidated, if possible.
Thanks, Tom
>
| |