Re: [PATCH v5 06/32] x86/mm: Add Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support
From: Borislav Petkov
Date: Thu May 04 2017 - 10:36:47 EST
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:24:11AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> I did this so that an the include order wouldn't cause issues (including
> asm/mem_encrypt.h followed by later by a linux/mem_encrypt.h include).
> I can make this a bit clearer by having separate #defines for each
> thing, e.g.:
> #ifndef sme_me_mask
> #define sme_me_mask 0UL
> #ifndef sme_active
> #define sme_active sme_active
> static inline ...
> Is that better/clearer?
I guess but where do we have to include both the asm/ and the linux/
IOW, can we avoid these issues altogether by partitioning symbol
declarations differently among the headers?
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.