Messages in this thread | | | From | Dionna Amalie Glaze <> | Date | Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:03:12 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2 11/11] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request()'s fw_err argument |
| |
> > Should this be? > > input.exitinfo2 = SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL; > > or make it part of patch #1? >
This is something I'm not fully 100% on. You said that there's not that many bits for firmware errors, so -1 or 0xff are fine by me so long as neither are possible results from the firmware. I don't recall the details on that, so if we go back to 0xff for SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL, I'd want a clearer explanation for why 0xff is sufficient.
Apart from the other comments from Tom which are a matter of style and not semantics,
Tested-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
-- -Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)
| |