On 11/25/21, Dov Murik <dovmurik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 22:34, Martin Fernandez wrote:
>> +extern u64 e820__range_mark_as_crypto(u64 start, u64 size);
>
> I suggest: e820__range_mark_as_crypto_capable
> (as you do in other function and field names)
>
Yes, good catch. Thanks.
>> /* Remove a range of memory from the E820 table: */
>> @@ -573,6 +604,9 @@ u64 __init e820__range_remove(u64 start, u64 size,
>> enum e820_type old_type, bool
>> /* Is the new range completely covered? */
>> if (entry->addr < start && entry_end > end) {
>> e820__range_add(end, entry_end - end, entry->type);
>> + if (entry->crypto_capable)
>> + e820__range_mark_as_crypto(end, entry_end - end);
>> +
>
> Why introduce this new function call instead of adding an extra
> 'crypto_capable' argument to e820__range_add() ?
I thought about it, but I would like not to change the signature of
e820__range_add. Either way, here I could use __e820__range_add which
it does accept crypto_capable as an argument, just as I did in
e820__range_update.
