[PATCH 02/13] KVM: arm64: Clarify ESR_ELx_ERET_ISS_ERET*

[Joey Gouly]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 01:41:15PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:23:50 +0000,
> Joey Gouly <joey.gouly at arm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:29:30PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:31:27 +0000,
> > > Joey Gouly <joey.gouly at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > If this part is confusing due to the name, maybe introduce a function in esr.h
> > > > esr_is_pac_eret() (name pending bikeshedding)?
> > > 
> > > That's indeed a better option. Now for the bikeshed aspect:
> > > 
> > > - esr_iss_is_eretax(): check for ESR_ELx_ERET_ISS_ERET being set
> > > 
> > > - esr_iss_is_eretab(): check for ESR_ELx_ERET_ISS_ERETA being set
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > > 
> > 
> > I was trying to avoid the ERETA* confusion by suggesting 'pac_eret', but if I
> > were to pick between your options I'd pick esr_iss_is_eretax().
> 
> It's not an either/or situation. We actually need both:
> 
> - esr_iss_is_eretax() being true tells you that you need to
>   authenticate the ERET
> 
> - esr_iss_is_eretab() tells you that you need to use the A or B key

Oh right, yes that makes sense (please add a brief comment like ^ above the
functions)

Thanks,
Joey