Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/smpboot: Re-position the call to tboot_wake_ap()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 19.01.2021 15:55, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 19/01/2021 14:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:10:44PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> So all the moving parts are in one function.
>>>
>>> No functional change.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Marek Kasiewicz <marek.kasiewicz@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Norbert Kamiński <norbert.kaminski@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Michal Zygowski <michal.zygowski@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Piotr Krol <piotr.krol@xxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Krystian Hebel <krystian.hebel@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Rich Persaud <persaur@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Christopher Clark <christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c | 10 ++++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
>>> index 67e727cebd..9eca452ce1 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
>>> @@ -426,6 +426,13 @@ static int wakeup_secondary_cpu(int phys_apicid, 
>>> unsigned long start_eip)
>>>      int maxlvt, timeout, i;
>>>  
>>>      /*
>>> +     * Some versions of tboot might be able to handle the entire wake 
>>> sequence
>>> +     * on our behalf.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if ( tboot_in_measured_env() && tboot_wake_ap(phys_apicid, start_eip) )
>> I think you are missing a ! in front of tboot_wake_ap?
> 
> Oh - so I am.  That function is totally backwards.
> 
> Fixed.

And then

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan