From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.6284.1620137378282274511
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Tue, 04 May 2021 07:09:38 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=PsQxmrfC;
 spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.133.124, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1620137377;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=OHfN9AZl62lvI4etoEC0kTUSPxa/r+Zrdv3/jv9cQb0=;
	b=PsQxmrfCKqw12xai9nf6oZrvjs7Fyw8gt8VpPvQg+PaJpzb/L+MNd93tNM+CrO3AizZV1p
	by8PFN9USStt7ZYliVK0LIj7E0COZxyCTBAlyerK9jL4DJZu4+DdkIHv9ZiY3AkojHwLMQ
	oEKc/BpeLKFP8MCbbbBJym4wH2r9kDc=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-132-YoiGTT0tMcWzkSAqYjEwuA-1; Tue, 04 May 2021 10:09:35 -0400
X-MC-Unique: YoiGTT0tMcWzkSAqYjEwuA-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C82E1008062;
	Tue,  4 May 2021 14:09:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-105.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.105])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E8550A8B;
	Tue,  4 May 2021 14:09:32 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 05/28] MdePkg: Add AsmPvalidate() support
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, brijesh.singh@amd.com
Cc: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>, Min Xu <min.m.xu@intel.com>,
 Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
 Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>,
 Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>
References: <20210430115148.22267-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <20210430115148.22267-6-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <d97da057-f543-db7e-3066-5182a3b28058@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <54d8dccb-0d80-0cca-89d6-bbef779c6252@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 16:09:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d97da057-f543-db7e-3066-5182a3b28058@redhat.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com;
	auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 05/04/21 15:58, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

> The leading comment block of the function is supposed to explain these
> associations:
> 
>   @retval EFI_SUCCESS        Successful completion (regardless of
>                              whether the Validated bit changed state).
>   @retval INVALID_PARAMETER  Invalid input parameters (FAIL_INPUT).
>   @retval EFI_UNSUPPORTED    Page size mismatch between guest (2M) and
>                              RMP entry (4K) (FAIL_SIZEMISMATCH).

Apologies, that should have been "EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER", not just
"INVALID_PARAMETER".

Thanks
Laszlo