On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:53 PM Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/17/21 7:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I notice that you have [RFC v2-fix 1/1] as the prefix for this patch.
> > b4 recently gained support for partial series re-rolls [1], but I
> > think you would need to bump the version number [RFC PATCH v3 21/32]
> > and maintain the patch numbering. In this case with changes moving
> > between patches, and those other patches being squashed any chance of
> > automated reconstruction of this series is likely lost.
>
> Ok. I will make sure to bump the version in next partial re-roll.
>
> If I am fixing this patch as per your comments, do I need bump the
> patch version for it as well?

I don't think it matters too much in this case as I don't think I can
use b4 to assemble this series. So just for future reference on other
patch sets. That said, I wouldn't mind a link to your work-in-progress
branch to see all the changes together in one place.

[..]
> > I'd prefer this helper take a 'struct real_mode_header *rmh' as an
> > argument rather than assume a global variable.
>
> I am fine with it. But existing inline functions also directly read/writes
> the real_mode_header. So I just followed the same format.

I notice the SEV-ES code passes an @rmh variable around for this purpose.

[..]
> > If there is to be a comment here it should be to clarify why @tr_idt
> > is 10 bytes, not necessarily a quirk of the assembler.
>
> Got it. I will fix the comment or remove it.
>
> >
> >> +SYM_DATA_START_LOCAL(tr_idt)
> >
> > The .fill restriction is only for @size, not @repeat. So, what's wrong
> > with SYM_DATA_LOCAL(tr_idt, .fill 2, 5, 0)?
>
> Any reason to prefer above change over previous code ?

What I'm really after is capturing why this size needs to be adjusted
for future reference. Maybe it's plainly obvious to someone who has
worked with this code, but it was not immediately obvious to me.

>
> SYM_DATA_START_LOCAL(tr_idt)
>          .short  0
>          .quad   0
> SYM_DATA_END(tr_idt)

This format implies that tr_idt is reserving space for 2 distinct data
structure attributes of those sizes, can you just put those names here
as comments? Otherwise the .fill format is more compact.