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().
