On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 16:47 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/9/23 16:40, Huang, Kai wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 11:24 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > ... > > > Also, tdmr_sz and max_tdmrs can both be derived from 'sysinfo'. Do they > > > really need to be stored here? > > > > It's not mandatory to keep them here. I did it mainly because I want to avoid > > passing 'sysinfo' as argument for almost all functions related to constructing > > TDMRs. > > I don't think it hurts readability that much. On the contrary, it makes > it more clear what data is needed for initialization. Sorry one thing I forgot to mention is if we keep 'tdmr_sz' in 'struct tdmr_info_list', it only needs to be calculated at once when allocating the buffer. Otherwise, we need to calculate it based on sysinfo- >max_reserved_per_tdmr each time we want to get a TDMR at a given index. To me putting relevant fields (tdmrs, tdmr_sz, max_tdmrs, nr_consumed_tdmrs) together makes how the TDMR list is organized more clear. But please let me know if you prefer removing 'tdmr_sz' and 'max_tdmrs'. Btw, if we remove 'tdmr_sz' and 'max_tdmrs', even nr_consumed_tdmrs is not absolutely necessary here. It can be a local variable of init_tdx_module() (as shown in v7), and the 'struct tdmr_info_list' will only have the 'tdmrs' member (as you commented in v7): https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cc195eb6499cf021b4ce2e937200571915bfe66f.camel@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mb9826e2bcf8bf6399c13cc5f95a948fe4b3a46d9 Please let me know what's your preference? > > > > If so, I think I'd probably do something > > > like this with the structure: > > > > > > struct tdmr_info_list { > > > struct tdmr_info *tdmrs; > > > int nr_consumed_tdmrs; // How many @tdmrs are in use > > > > > > /* Metadata for freeing this structure: */ > > > int tdmr_sz; // Size of one 'tdmr_info' (has a flex array) > > > int max_tdmrs; // How many @tdmrs are allocated > > > }; > > > > > > Modulo whataver folks are doing for comments these days. > > > > Looks nice to me. Will use. A slight thing is 'tdmr_sz' is also used to get > > the TDMR at a given index, but not just freeing the structure. > > > > Btw, is C++ style comment "//" OK in kernel code? > > It's OK with me, but I don't think there's much consensus on it. > Probably best to stick with normal arch/x86 style for now. > > Will use normal arch/x86 style for now. Thanks for the info.
