On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 10:47 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/28/22 16:14, Kai Huang wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:06 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On 4/27/22 17:15, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > Couldn't we get rid of that comment if you did something like: > > > > > > > > > > ret = tdx_get_sysinfo(&tdx_cmr_array, &tdx_sysinfo); > > > > > > > > Yes will do. > > > > > > > > > and preferably make the variables function-local. > > > > > > > > 'tdx_sysinfo' will be used by KVM too. > > > > > > In other words, it's not a part of this series so I can't review whether > > > this statement is correct or whether there's a better way to hand this > > > information over to KVM. > > > > > > This (minor) nugget influencing the design also isn't even commented or > > > addressed in the changelog. > > > > TDSYSINFO_STRUCT is 1024B and CMR array is 512B, so I don't think it should be > > in the stack. I can change to use dynamic allocation at the beginning and free > > it at the end of the function. KVM support patches can change it to static > > variable in the file. > > 2k of stack is big, but it isn't a deal breaker for something that's not > nested anywhere and that's only called once in a pretty controlled > setting and not in interrupt context. I wouldn't cry about it. OK. I'll change to use function local variables for both of them. -- Thanks, -Kai
