lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 07/12] x86/tdx: Make TDX_HYPERCALL asm similar to TDX_MODULE_CALL
Date
On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 16:47 +0300, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:41:25PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 15:12 +0300, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:56:40AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 14:45 +0300, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > > I would rather keep the struct
> > > > > > > read-only where possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can achieve this if there's a clean way to do, but I don't see that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep _ret() and non-_ret() versions?
> > > >
> > > > The problem is the assembly needs to always turn on the "\ret" so that the R10
> > > > (used as VP.VMCALL leaf return code) can be saved to the structure. Otherwise
> > > > we are not able to return VP.VMCALL leaf return code.
> > >
> > > Yeah. This is downside of single assembly macro for all calls.
> > >
> > > One possible way is to make it in C: non-_ret() version pass to the
> > > assembly helper copy of the caller's struct, keeping original intact.
> > > But, yeah, it is ugly.
> > >
> >
> > You sure you want to do this? :-)
>
> No, I am not.
>
> Maybe somebody else has better ideas.
>

Anyway thanks for feedback. So I don't see there's any real problem with this
patch, thus I will just keep the current way.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-04 00:42    [W:0.117 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site