Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH 03/13] x86: add a helper routine for the PVALIDATE instruction

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH 03/13] x86: add a helper routine for the PVALIDATE instruction
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 20:12:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210326191241.GJ25229@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bddf2257-4178-c230-c40f-389db529a950@amd.com>

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:22:24PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> Should I do the same for the sev-es.c ? Currently, I am keeping all the
> SEV-SNP specific changes in sev-snp.{c,h}. After a rename of
> sev-es.{c,h} from both the arch/x86/kernel and arch-x86/boot/compressed
> I can add the SNP specific stuff to it.
> 
> Thoughts ?

SNP depends on the whole functionality in SEV-ES, right? Which means,
SNP will need all the functionality of sev-es.c.

But sev-es.c is a lot more code than the header and snp is

 arch/x86/kernel/sev-snp.c               | 269 ++++++++++++++++++++++++

oh well, not so much.

I guess a single

arch/x86/kernel/sev.c

is probably ok.

We can always do arch/x86/kernel/sev/ later and split stuff then when it
starts getting real fat and impacts complication times.

Btw, there's also arch/x86/kernel/sev-es-shared.c and that can be

arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c

then.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette