Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-83921-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:23:33 -0800
In-Reply-To: <Zd41wDpl4K6j+iU+@AUS-L1-JOHALLEN.amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240226213244.18441-1-john.allen@amd.com> <20240226213244.18441-6-john.allen@amd.com>
 <Zd4mf5Z1N4dFjFU7@google.com> <1f95281e-f8a9-4ff2-8959-162a192e48bd@amd.com> <Zd41wDpl4K6j+iU+@AUS-L1-JOHALLEN.amd.com>
Message-ID: <Zd42tc61Epo3REK0@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] KVM: SVM: Rename vmplX_ssp -> plX_ssp
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, weijiang.yang@intel.com, 
	rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, bp@alien8.de, pbonzini@redhat.com, 
	mlevitsk@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, John Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 01:15:09PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On 2/27/24 12:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, John Allen wrote:
> > > > Rename SEV-ES save area SSP fields to be consistent with the APM.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h | 8 ++++----
> > > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> > > > index 87a7b917d30e..728c98175b9c 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> > > > @@ -358,10 +358,10 @@ struct sev_es_save_area {
> > > >   	struct vmcb_seg ldtr;
> > > >   	struct vmcb_seg idtr;
> > > >   	struct vmcb_seg tr;
> > > > -	u64 vmpl0_ssp;
> > > > -	u64 vmpl1_ssp;
> > > > -	u64 vmpl2_ssp;
> > > > -	u64 vmpl3_ssp;
> > > > +	u64 pl0_ssp;
> > > > +	u64 pl1_ssp;
> > > > +	u64 pl2_ssp;
> > > > +	u64 pl3_ssp;
> > > 
> > > Are these CPL fields, or VMPL fields?  Presumably it's the former since this is
> > > a single save area.  If so, the changelog should call that out, i.e. make it clear
> > > that the current names are outright bugs.  If these somehow really are VMPL fields,
> > > I would prefer to diverge from the APM, because pl[0..3] is way to ambiguous in
> > > that case.
> > 
> > Definitely not VMPL fields...  I guess I had VMPL levels on my mind when I
> > was typing those names.
> 
> FWIW, the patch that accessed these fields has been omitted in this
> version so if we just want to correct the names of these fields, this
> patch can be pulled in separately from this series.

Nice!  Can you post this as a standalone patch, with a massage changelog to
explain that the vmpl prefix was just a braino?

Thanks!