Re: [PATCH v2 10/31] x86/virt/tdx: Add extra memory to TDX Module for Extensions

[Edgecombe, Rick P]

On Thu, 2026-04-23 at 00:59 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> Ditto here.  I don't think we should introduce any more cond_resched().
> 
> Btw, I think technically we can reuse the seamcall_ir_resched() you introduced
> later, albeit in which a local '_args' is used as a copy of the original 'args',
> but that has no harm for the case where we can just use the 'args' to loop.
> 
> I am wondering whether we can just use that here, or we just get rid of that
> helper (then open retry by the callers of these SEAMCALL wrappers), since there
> will be more cases where we need to manually set 'resume=1' in the SEAMCALL
> input 'args' when retrying TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESUMABLE.

I kind of like the latter option to open code more of this stuff. The stacks of
seamcall wrapper macros is already too much.