Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8723950c-e07c-9a03-503a-ab232701d1e9@linux.intel.com>
 <c015093fdbc8e6a5aa9fc43f78fec8d9c38295c7.1616801167.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <77a13ae9-0220-030e-7ae4-fd26edd7b110@intel.com> <2a3f6b3d-cd80-0734-ce83-c067666c8326@linux.intel.com>
 <14332abf-c78c-3bc2-9a7c-ceacfa7a0661@intel.com> <596175e3-9d1e-6c9c-fadb-ad02c396e3ad@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <596175e3-9d1e-6c9c-fadb-ad02c396e3ad@linux.intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:53:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hmA=V+wQA7JsvBNYnm+dHkRZtJSSxSZM8b2Xwnjq2kWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/tdx: Add __tdcall() and __tdvmcall() helper functions
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:12 PM Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
[..]
> >>> Also, do you *REALLY* need to do this from assembly?  Can't it be done
> >>> in the C wrapper?
> >> Its common for all use cases of TDVMCALL (vendor specific, in/out, etc).
> >> so added
> >> it here.
> >

Can I ask a favor?

Please put a line break between quoted lines and your reply.

> > That's not a good reason.  You could just as easily have a C wrapper
> > which all uses of TDVMCALL go through.

...because this runs together when reading otherwise.

> Any reason for not preferring it in assembly code?
> Also, using wrapper will add more complication for in/out instruction
> substitution use case. please check the use case in following patch.
> https://github.com/intel/tdx/commit/1b73f60aa5bb93554f3b15cd786a9b10b53c1543

This commit still has open coded assembly for the TDVMCALL? I thought
we talked about it being unified with the common definition, or has
this patch not been reworked with that feedback yet? I expect there is
no performance reason why in/out need to get their own custom coded
TDVMCALL implementation. It should also be the case the failure should
behave the same as native in/out failure i.e. all ones on read
failure, and silent drops on write failure.