On 8/21/2025 9:16 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, Kim Phillips wrote: >> On 8/21/25 5:58 AM, Kalra, Ashish wrote: >>> On 8/21/2025 5:30 AM, Kim Phillips wrote: >>>> On 8/20/25 6:23 PM, Kalra, Ashish wrote: >>>>> On 8/20/2025 5:45 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>> On 8/20/25 1:50 PM, Ashish Kalra wrote: >>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>> + * If ciphertext hiding is enabled, the joint SEV-ES/SEV-SNP >>>>>>> + * ASID range is partitioned into separate SEV-ES and SEV-SNP >>>>>>> + * ASID ranges, with the SEV-SNP range being [1..max_snp_asid] >>>>>>> + * and the SEV-ES range being [max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid]. >>>>>> [max_snp_asid + 1..max_sev_es_asid] >>>>>> ? >>>>> Yes. >>>> So why wouldn't you have left Sean's original "(max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid]" as-is? >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>> Because that i believe is a typo and the correct SEV-ES range is >>> [max_snp_asid + 1..max_sev_es_asid]. >> >> It's not, though. >> >> [max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid] >> >> and >> >> (max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid] >> >> are two completely different things. > > Yeah, inclusive versus exclusive (I'm quite proud that I remembered which was > which, _and_ that I got it right :-D). > Thanks for that explanation. >> You also modified Sean's Documentation/ changes. A consistent "joint >> SEV-ES+SEV-SNP" is preferred. > > FWIW, I don't have a strong preference on the exact verbiage, so long as it's > consistent. I have consistently modified all "SEV-ES+SEV-SNP" to "SEV-ES and SEV-SNP" inline/Documentation and commit logs. I will post a revision fixing the comment above (if it is needed, unless this can be fixed during merge). Thanks, Ashish
