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 15:53:53 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        "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>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common
 code
Message-ID: <YJv6EWJmDYQL4Eqt@google.com>
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>
 <20210512130821.7r2rtzcyjltecun7@box.shutemov.name>
 <e8886298-83fa-212e-ab3a-5e5b21a7ab6c@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e8886298-83fa-212e-ab3a-5e5b21a7ab6c@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 12, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/12/21 6:08 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Because the code is already separate.  You're actually going to some
> trouble to move the SEV-specific code and then combine it with the
> TDX-specific code.
> 
> Anyway, please just give it a shot.  Should take all of ten minutes.  If
> it doesn't work out in practice, fine.  You'll have a good paragraph for
> the changelog.

Or maybe wait to see how Boris' propose protected_guest_has() pans out?  E.g. if
we can do "protected_guest_has(MEMORY_ENCRYPTION)" or whatever, then the truly
common bits could be placed into common.c without any vendor-specific logic.