On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, John Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 01:15:09PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On 2/27/24 12:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, John Allen wrote:
> > > > Rename SEV-ES save area SSP fields to be consistent with the APM.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h | 8 ++++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> > > > index 87a7b917d30e..728c98175b9c 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> > > > @@ -358,10 +358,10 @@ struct sev_es_save_area {
> > > > struct vmcb_seg ldtr;
> > > > struct vmcb_seg idtr;
> > > > struct vmcb_seg tr;
> > > > - u64 vmpl0_ssp;
> > > > - u64 vmpl1_ssp;
> > > > - u64 vmpl2_ssp;
> > > > - u64 vmpl3_ssp;
> > > > + u64 pl0_ssp;
> > > > + u64 pl1_ssp;
> > > > + u64 pl2_ssp;
> > > > + u64 pl3_ssp;
> > >
> > > Are these CPL fields, or VMPL fields? Presumably it's the former since this is
> > > a single save area. If so, the changelog should call that out, i.e. make it clear
> > > that the current names are outright bugs. If these somehow really are VMPL fields,
> > > I would prefer to diverge from the APM, because pl[0..3] is way to ambiguous in
> > > that case.
> >
> > Definitely not VMPL fields... I guess I had VMPL levels on my mind when I
> > was typing those names.
>
> FWIW, the patch that accessed these fields has been omitted in this
> version so if we just want to correct the names of these fields, this
> patch can be pulled in separately from this series.
Nice! Can you post this as a standalone patch, with a massage changelog to
explain that the vmpl prefix was just a braino?
Thanks!
