On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 16:19 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 9/4/24 05:07, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > +static __always_inline void td_##lclass##_clearbit##bits(struct vcpu_tdx
> > *tdx, \
> > + u32 field, u64
> > bit) \
> > +{
> > \
> > + u64
> > err; \
> > +
> > \
> > + tdvps_##lclass##_check(field,
> > bits); \
> > + err = tdh_vp_wr(tdx, TDVPS_##uclass(field), 0,
> > bit); \
> > + if (KVM_BUG_ON(err, tdx-
> > >vcpu.kvm)) \
> > + pr_err("TDH_VP_WR["#uclass".0x%x] &= ~0x%llx failed:
> > 0x%llx\n", \
> > + field, bit,
> > err); \
>
> Maybe a bit large when inlined? Maybe
>
> if (unlikely(err))
> tdh_vp_wr_failed(tdx, field, bit, err);
>
> and add tdh_vp_wr_failed to tdx.c.
There is a tiny bit of difference between the messages:
pr_err("TDH_VP_WR["#uclass".0x%x] = 0x%llx failed: 0x%llx\n", ...
pr_err("TDH_VP_WR["#uclass".0x%x] |= 0x%llx failed: 0x%llx\n", ...
pr_err("TDH_VP_WR["#uclass".0x%x] &= ~0x%llx failed: 0x%llx\n", ...
We can parameterize that part of the message, but it gets a bit tortured. Or
just lose that bit of detail. We can take a look. Thanks.
