Re: [PATCH v13 07/22] KVM: selftests: Introduce structures for TDX guest boot parameters

[Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org>]

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 04:50:07PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > Sean, is this the preferred way to expose offsets to asm files (or asm
> > > code blocks) -- as opposed to say using .equ [*]?
> >
> > For actual .S assembly, yes.  For inline asm, maybe?  If it looks prettier, go
> > for it.
> >
> > > If yes, I can rework my nVMX GPR fixes to use the same approach for
> > > register offsets. I wonder if the non-TDX part of this patch (i.e.
> > > Makefile stuff) can be split, then patch 6 and the Makefile stuff can
> > > land independently and allow development on top.
> > >
> > > I can also split them out and include them in the next version of my
> > > series, then whichever series lands first will land the offsets
> > > support.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> >
> > Hmm, I'd say keep your series as-is for now.  The OFFSET() infrastructure really
> > shines for proper assembly.  For what you're doing, AFAICT it's only marginally
> > better.  So I don't think it's worth juggling dependencies to use it right away,
> > we can always convert if/when the TDX series lands the fancy stuff.
> 
> Ack. We can do the switch later like you say.

I take this back. My series builds with the internal toolchain, but not
when I just use make with LLVM. Probably different compiler versions or
build options, but the fact the .equ thing doesn't always work means I
can't use it.

I would paste the error here, but the compiler literally spits out
incomprehensible garbage.

Lisa, if you will send a new version of this series for other reasons,
do you mind splitting out the non-TDX parts of this patch? Ideally we'd
have 1-2 patches that introduce the OFFSET() infrastructure without any
TDX parts, which should make it easier to pick up separately or include
with other series.

If a new version won't be needed anyway, I will just wait for this to
land before refreshing my series on top.