On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 00:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ..snip.. > > > > @@ -925,6 +1014,11 @@ void __noreturn efi_stub_entry(efi_handle_t handle, > > > > goto fail; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +#if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH)) > > > > + /* If a Secure Launch is in progress, this never returns */ > > > > + efi_secure_launch(boot_params); > > > > +#endif > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * Call the SEV init code while still running with the firmware's > > > > * GDT/IDT, so #VC exceptions will be handled by EFI. > > > > > > efi_set_u64_form()? > > > > > > What the heck is that? If it actually involves two u32 packed into a 64 field, why not simply do two stores? > > > > > > > Well the story is this. The EFI maintainers asked me to use the > > efi_set_u64_split() type functions (this one splits a u64 into 2 u32). I > > went to look and there was no function that did the opposite action so I > > added it. The original function was called efi_set_u64_split() so > > efi_set_u64_form() was what I came up with. I can name it anything that is > > desired. > > Hey Peter, > > Is there anything in particular that needs to be done to this patch? > If anyone feels strongly enough about this, we can fix it in a follow-up patch. The code works as expected, so no need to derail this series even further.
