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

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 16:53 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 16:31 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> > > > > So STATUS_OPERAND_BUSY() seems like an ok thing to try next for v3 of this
> > > > > series at least. Unless anyone has any strong objections ahead of time.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you make it IS_TDX_STATUS_OPERAND_BUSY() so that it's obviously a check and
> > > > not a statement/value, and to scope it to TDX?
> > > 
> > > It's a mouthful, but I can live with it. Yea, it def should have TDX in the name.
> > 
> > IS_TDX_STATUS_OP_BUSY?
> 
> Ehh, would nicer to have it closer to what is in the TDX docs. The worst
> would be to read TDX_STATUS_OP_BUSY, then have to look at the value to figure
> out which error code it actually was.
> 
> Maybe just drop STATUS and have IS_TDX_OPERAND_BUSY()? It still loses the ERR
> part, which made it look like IS_ERR().

Any of the IS_TDX_xxx options work for me.