Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:07:04 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Kalra, Ashish" <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com,
        rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com,
        michael.roth@amd.com, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name,
        ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com,
        dgilbert@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 12/49] crypto: ccp: Add support to initialize
 the AMD-SP for SEV-SNP
Message-ID: <Y1enOIfS3nnlcyyc@zn.tnic>
References: <cover.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <87a0481526e66ddd5f6192cbb43a50708aee2883.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <Yzh558vy+rJfsBBq@zn.tnic>
 <f997dd38-a615-e343-44cd-a7aeb9447a1e@amd.com>
 <d3ab29c8-8f22-28eb-dfe3-6100a8f16e4b@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d3ab29c8-8f22-28eb-dfe3-6100a8f16e4b@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:48:48PM -0500, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
> I see that other drivers are also using the same convention:

It is only convention. Look at the .rst output:

0 if the SEV successfully processed the command
-``ENODEV``    if the SEV device is not available
-``ENOTSUPP``  if the SEV does not support SEV
-``ETIMEDOUT`` if the SEV command timed out
-``EIO``       if the SEV returned a non-zero return code

vs

0 if the SEV successfully processed the command
``-ENODEV``    if the SEV device is not available
``-ENOTSUPP``  if the SEV does not support SEV
``-ETIMEDOUT`` if the SEV command timed out
``-EIO``       if the SEV returned a non-zero return code

so in the html output of this, the minus sign will be displayed either
with text font or with monospaced font as part of the error type.

I wanna say the second is better as the '-' is part of the error code
but won't waste too much time debating this. :)

Btw

$ ./scripts/kernel-doc include/linux/psp-sev.h

complains a lot. Might wanna fix those up when bored or someone else
who's reading this and feels bored too. :-)

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette