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;
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 16:08:21 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        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@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common
 code
Message-ID: <20210512130821.7r2rtzcyjltecun7@box.shutemov.name>
References: <cover.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <7c5adf75d69ea327b22b404b7c37b29712d73640.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <5536639a-918d-de8d-ff32-934a13902a03@intel.com>
 <d04e5992-8800-a8df-99de-4dbb40e45d09@linux.intel.com>
 <bbcb688c-5aa0-eeb1-192a-45edaccc2f32@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <bbcb688c-5aa0-eeb1-192a-45edaccc2f32@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:23:29PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/10/21 3:19 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> > On 5/7/21 2:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> This doesn't seem much like common code to me.? It seems like 100% SEV
> >> code.? Is this really where we want to move it?
> > 
> > Both SEV and TDX code has requirement to enable
> > CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED and define force_dma_unencrypted()
> > function.
> > 
> > force_dma_unencrypted() is modified by patch titled "x86/tdx: Make DMA
> > pages shared" to add TDX guest specific support.
> > 
> > Since both SEV and TDX code uses it, its moved to common file.
> 
> That's not an excuse to have a bunch of AMD (or Intel) feature-specific
> code in a file named "common".  I'd make an attempt to keep them
> separate and then call into the two separate functions *from* the common
> function.

But why? What good does the additional level of inderection brings?

It's like saying arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c shouldn't have anything AMD
or Intel specific. If a function can cover both vendors I don't see a
point for additinal complexity.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov