MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230221113428.19324-1-bp@alien8.de> <20230221113428.19324-12-bp@alien8.de>
 <3cb5d149-699a-b649-1986-23d7f6783e6f@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <3cb5d149-699a-b649-1986-23d7f6783e6f@amd.com>
From:   Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:03:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHaH=Xpnq48LtwPra=Mhu=110oFzs=dv40vsZT7WOAvDqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 11/11] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request()'s
 fw_err argument
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@amd.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        x86@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

>
> Should this be?
>
>         input.exitinfo2 = SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL;
>
> or make it part of patch #1?
>

This is something I'm not fully 100% on. You said that there's not
that many bits for firmware errors, so -1 or 0xff are fine by me so
long as neither are possible results from the firmware. I don't recall
the details on that, so if we go back to 0xff for SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL,
I'd want a clearer explanation for why 0xff is sufficient.

Apart from the other comments from Tom which are a matter of style and
not semantics,

Tested-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>

-- 
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)