On 4/20/21 4:53 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:12 PM Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
Also, do you *REALLY* need to do this from assembly? Can't it be done
in the C wrapper?
Its common for all use cases of TDVMCALL (vendor specific, in/out, etc).
Can I ask a favor?
Please put a line break between quoted lines and your reply.
That's not a good reason. You could just as easily have a C wrapper
which all uses of TDVMCALL go through.
...because this runs together when reading otherwise.
Any reason for not preferring it in assembly code?
Also, using wrapper will add more complication for in/out instruction
substitution use case. please check the use case in following patch.
This commit still has open coded assembly for the TDVMCALL? I thought
we talked about it being unified with the common definition, or has
this patch not been reworked with that feedback yet? I expect there is
no performance reason why in/out need to get their own custom coded
TDVMCALL implementation. It should also be the case the failure should
behave the same as native in/out failure i.e. all ones on read
failure, and silent drops on write failure.
That link is for older version. My next version addresses your review
comments (re-uses TDVMCALL() function). Although the patch is ready, I am
waiting to fix other review comments before sending the next version. I
have just shared that link to explain about the use case.
Linux Kernel Developer