Re: [PATCH -v2 11/11] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request()'s fw_err argument

[Dionna Amalie Glaze]

>
> Should this be?
>
>         input.exitinfo2 = SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL;
>
> or make it part of patch #1?
>

This is something I'm not fully 100% on. You said that there's not
that many bits for firmware errors, so -1 or 0xff are fine by me so
long as neither are possible results from the firmware. I don't recall
the details on that, so if we go back to 0xff for SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL,
I'd want a clearer explanation for why 0xff is sufficient.

Apart from the other comments from Tom which are a matter of style and
not semantics,

Tested-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)