From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757327AbcIPHIg (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:08:36 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:39241 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752388AbcIPHI2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:08:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:08:27 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tom Lendacky Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Matt Fleming , Joerg Roedel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Andrey Ryabinin , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , "H. Peter Anvin" , Paolo Bonzini , Alexander Potapenko , Thomas Gleixner , Dmitry Vyukov Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/20] iommu/amd: AMD IOMMU support for memory encryption Message-ID: <20160916070827.GA23229@nazgul.tnic> References: <20160822223529.29880.50884.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20160822223820.29880.17752.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20160912114550.nwhtpmncwp22l7vy@pd.tnic> <27bc5c87-3a74-a1ee-55b1-7f19ec9cd6cc@amd.com> <20160914144139.GA9295@nazgul.tnic> <421c767b-2410-2537-4f4e-b70670898fee@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <421c767b-2410-2537-4f4e-b70670898fee@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57:41AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > If I do that, then I could put an #ifdef in the header to include the > asm/mem_encrypt.h if the memory encryption is configured, else set the > value to zero. Yeah, something along those lines... > I'll look into this. One immediate question becomes do we keep the > name very specific vs. making it more generic, sme_me_mask vs me_mask, > etc. No strong opinion either way from me. My angle is that whatever it is, we can always rename it later if we decide to. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/20] iommu/amd: AMD IOMMU support for memory encryption Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:08:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20160916070827.GA23229@nazgul.tnic> References: <20160822223529.29880.50884.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20160822223820.29880.17752.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20160912114550.nwhtpmncwp22l7vy@pd.tnic> <27bc5c87-3a74-a1ee-55b1-7f19ec9cd6cc@amd.com> <20160914144139.GA9295@nazgul.tnic> <421c767b-2410-2537-4f4e-b70670898fee@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <421c767b-2410-2537-4f4e-b70670898fee-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tom Lendacky Cc: linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kasan-dev-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Matt Fleming , Joerg Roedel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Andrey Ryabinin , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , "H. Peter Anvin" , Paolo Bonzini , Alexander Potapenko , Thomas Gleixner , Dmitry Vyukov List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57:41AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > If I do that, then I could put an #ifdef in the header to include the > asm/mem_encrypt.h if the memory encryption is configured, else set the > value to zero. Yeah, something along those lines... > I'll look into this. One immediate question becomes do we keep the > name very specific vs. making it more generic, sme_me_mask vs me_mask, > etc. No strong opinion either way from me. My angle is that whatever it is, we can always rename it later if we decide to. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --