From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbc875b1d2113225c2b44a2384d5b303d0453cf7.1627424774.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
> to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).
So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer. Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.
> +#define PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT 0 /* Encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT 1 /* Host encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT 2 /* Guest encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE 3 /* Guest encrypted state */
The kerneldoc comments on these individual helpers will give you plenty
of space to properly document what they indicate and what a (potential)
caller should do based on them. Something the above comments completely
fail to.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbc875b1d2113225c2b44a2384d5b303d0453cf7.1627424774.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
> to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).
So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer. Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.
> +#define PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT 0 /* Encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT 1 /* Host encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT 2 /* Guest encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE 3 /* Guest encrypted state */
The kerneldoc comments on these individual helpers will give you plenty
of space to properly document what they indicate and what a (potential)
caller should do based on them. Something the above comments completely
fail to.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbc875b1d2113225c2b44a2384d5b303d0453cf7.1627424774.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
> to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).
So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer. Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.
> +#define PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT 0 /* Encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT 1 /* Host encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT 2 /* Guest encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE 3 /* Guest encrypted state */
The kerneldoc comments on these individual helpers will give you plenty
of space to properly document what they indicate and what a (potential)
caller should do based on them. Something the above comments completely
fail to.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbc875b1d2113225c2b44a2384d5b303d0453cf7.1627424774.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
> to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).
So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer. Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.
> +#define PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT 0 /* Encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT 1 /* Host encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT 2 /* Guest encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE 3 /* Guest encrypted state */
The kerneldoc comments on these individual helpers will give you plenty
of space to properly document what they indicate and what a (potential)
caller should do based on them. Something the above comments completely
fail to.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbc875b1d2113225c2b44a2384d5b303d0453cf7.1627424774.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
> to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).
So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer. Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.
> +#define PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT 0 /* Encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT 1 /* Host encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT 2 /* Guest encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE 3 /* Guest encrypted state */
The kerneldoc comments on these individual helpers will give you plenty
of space to properly document what they indicate and what a (potential)
caller should do based on them. Something the above comments completely
fail to.
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-28 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 189+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-27 22:26 [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-28 13:17 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2021-07-28 13:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 16:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-07-28 16:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-07-28 16:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-07-28 16:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-07-28 16:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-02 10:34 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:34 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:34 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-11 14:53 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-11 14:53 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-11 14:53 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-11 14:53 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-11 15:39 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-11 15:39 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-11 15:39 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-11 15:39 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-28 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-28 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-29 14:24 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-29 14:24 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-29 14:24 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-29 14:24 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-29 14:24 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-02 10:35 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:35 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:35 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 03/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Add a powerpc " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme_active() with prot_guest_has() Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-02 10:37 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:37 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:37 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_active() " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-02 10:42 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:42 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:42 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-02 10:45 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:45 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:45 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-09 21:59 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-09 21:59 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 21:59 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 21:59 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 22:08 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 22:08 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 22:08 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 22:08 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-30 22:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-30 22:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-30 22:34 ` Sean Christopherson via iommu
2021-07-30 22:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-09 21:55 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-09 21:55 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 21:55 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 21:55 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-02 12:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-02 12:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-02 12:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-02 12:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-09 22:04 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-09 22:04 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 22:04 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 22:04 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-10 18:45 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 18:45 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 18:45 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 18:45 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 19:48 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-10 19:48 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-10 19:48 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-10 19:48 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-10 20:09 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 20:09 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 20:09 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-10 20:09 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-11 15:52 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-11 15:52 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-11 15:52 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-11 15:52 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-12 10:07 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-12 10:07 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-12 10:07 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-12 10:07 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-13 17:08 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-13 17:08 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-13 17:08 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-13 17:08 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-13 20:17 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-08-13 20:17 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-13 20:17 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-13 20:17 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 08/11] mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-02 10:47 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:47 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:47 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86/sev: " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-02 10:46 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:46 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-02 10:46 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 10/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` [PATCH 11/11] s390/mm: " Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-27 22:26 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:37 ` [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:37 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:37 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:37 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:37 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-27 22:37 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
2021-07-28 11:50 ` Christian König
2021-07-28 11:50 ` Christian König
2021-07-28 11:50 ` Christian König
2021-07-28 11:50 ` Christian König
2021-07-28 11:50 ` Christian König
2021-07-28 11:50 ` Christian König
2021-08-09 1:41 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 1:41 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 1:41 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 1:41 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2021-08-09 22:16 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 22:16 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 22:16 ` Tom Lendacky
2021-08-09 22:16 ` Tom Lendacky via iommu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.