lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [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)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:37    [W:0.057 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site