On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 06:55:45PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > I'm confused here. What is wrong with linux/ include namespace? The problem is that you need all kinds of workarounds so that the decompressor builds. Just look at the beginning of arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.h Even you had to do them: /* cpu_feature_enabled() cannot be used this early */ #define USE_EARLY_PGTABLE_L5 That thing sprinkled everywhere is not a clean solution. > Yes, we had story with <asm/io.h> that actually caused issue in > decompression code, but linux/ has a lot of perfectly portable > library-like stuff. Yes, those are fine except that not everything that leaks into the decompressor code through includes is perfectly portable. > Could you explain what rules are? Library-like stuff like types.h, linkage.h, etc we could include for now but including linux/kernel.h which pulls in everything but the kitchen sink is bad. So I'd like for the decompressor to be completely separate from kernel proper because it is a whole different thing and I want for us to be able to include headers in it without ugly workarounds just so that kernel proper include changes do not influence the decompressor. > Hm. accept_or_mark_unaccepted()? What's wrong with early_accept_memory()? > > Immediately? As opposed to delayed? > > Yes. Otherwise accept is delayed until the first allocation of the memory. Yes, put that in the comment pls. > Memory encryption can be a reason to have unaccepted memory, but it is not > 1:1 match. Unaccepted memory can be present without memory ecnryption if > data secruty and integrity guaranteed by other means. Really? Please elaborate. I thought memory acceptance is a feature solely for TDX and SNP guests to use. > <asm/mem_encrypt.h> is very AMD SME/SEV centric. So? > I'm not sure it need to exist in the way it is now. I'm not sure what your argument actually is for having yet another separate header vs putting it in a header which already deals with that stuff. > Okay, I will move it into a separate function, but it has to be called > from allocate_e820() because it allocates and free the map. You mean, you want for allocate_e820() to call this new function because both allocate and free? Might have to explain what you mean here exactly. > > And you're saying that that efi_allocate_pages() below can really give a > > 256M contiguous chunk? > > Yes, that's assumption. Is it too high ask to deal with 4PiB of PA?
