Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/sev: Add support to unaccept memory after hot-remove

[Pratik R. Sampat]

On 1/29/26 11:39 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/29/26 09:32, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
>> In that case a fall through for TDX (with a comment explaining why) and
>> panic for rest may be the way to go?
> 
> No. panic() is an absolute last resort. It's almost never the way to go.
> 
> What else can we do to ensure we never reach this code if the platform
> doesn't support memory un-acceptance?

The panic() here similar to its existing arch_accept_memory() counterpart is
mostly to guard against a cant-happen scenario (unless Kiryl had a different
intention writing the initial hook). It is called from functions that compile
this in only if CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY is enabled. TDX and SNP are the only
two users of it today.