On 08/30/2016 09:57 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Aug 30, 2016 6:34 AM, "Tom Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 08/25/2016 08:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Tom Lendacky wrote: >>> >>>> Provide support for Secure Memory Encryption (SME). This initial support >>>> defines the memory encryption mask as a variable for quick access and an >>>> accessor for retrieving the number of physical addressing bits lost if >>>> SME is enabled. >>> >>> What is the reason that this needs to live in assembly code? >> >> In later patches this code is expanded and deals with a lot of page >> table manipulation, cpuid/rdmsr instructions, etc. and so I thought it >> was best to do it this way. > > None of that sounds like it needs to be in asm, though. > > I, at least, have a strong preference for minimizing the amount of asm > in the low-level arch code. I can take a look at converting it over to C code. Thanks, Tom > > --Andy > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>