On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:45 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 05:11:05PM +0000, Kalra, Ashish wrote: > > They are basically providing the APIs for the hypervisor to manage a > > SNP guest. > > Yes, I know. But that is not my question. Lemme try again. > > My previous comment was: > > "I think you should simply export sev_do_cmd() and call it instead." > > In this case, the API is a single function - sev_do_cmd() - which the > hypervisor calls. > > So my question still stands: why is it better to have silly wrappers > of sev_do_cmd() instead of having the hypervisor call sev_do_cmd() > directly? We already have sev_issue_cmd_external_user() exported right? Another option could be to make these wrappers more helpful and less silly. For example callers need to know the PSP command format right now, see sev_guest_decommission(). int sev_guest_decommission(struct sev_data_decommission *data, int *error) Instead of taking @data this function could just take inputs to create sev_data_decommission: int sev_guest_decommission(u32 handle, int *error) > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
