Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] x86/tdx: Consolidate TDX error handling

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 10:58 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > > @@ -202,12 +202,6 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(tdx_lock);
> > >   
> > >   static atomic_t nr_configured_hkid;
> > >   
> > > -static bool tdx_operand_busy(u64 err)
> > > -{
> > > -	return (err & TDX_SEAMCALL_STATUS_MASK) == TDX_OPERAND_BUSY;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -
> > 
> > Isaku, this one was yours (along with the whitespace damage). What do
> > you think of this patch?
> 
> I think this actually got added by Paolo, suggested by Binbin. I like these
> added helpers a lot. KVM code is often open coded for bitwise stuff, but since
> Paolo added tdx_operand_busy(), I like the idea of following the pattern more
> broadly. I'm on the fence about tdx_status() though.

Can we turn them into macros that make it super obvious they are checking if the
error code *is* xyz?  E.g.

#define IS_TDX_ERR_OPERAND_BUSY
#define IS_TDX_ERR_OPERAND_INVALID
#define IS_TDX_ERR_NO_ENTROPY
#define IS_TDX_ERR_SW_ERROR

As is, it's not at all clear that things like tdx_success() are simply checks,
as opposed to commands.