On 2021-12-15 15:22:57 -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:38:55PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > But it is hard to discuss anything without patches so we can continue > > the topic with concrete patches. But this unification is not > > super-pressing so it can go ontop of the SNP pile. > > Yah, it's all theoretical at this point. Didn't mean to derail things > though. I mainly brought it up to suggest that Venu's original approach of > returning the encryption bit via a pointer argument might make it easier to > expand it for other purposes in the future, and that naming it for that > future purpose might encourage future developers to focus their efforts > there instead of potentially re-introducing duplicate code. > > But either way it's simple enough to rework things when we actually > cross that bridge. So totally fine with saving all of this as a future > follow-up, or picking up either of Venu's patches for now if you'd still > prefer. So, what is the consensus? Do you want me to submit a patch after the SNP changes go upstream? Or, do you want to roll in one of the patches that I posted earlier? Venu >
