lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 10/13] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard Extensions
From
Date
> +#define sgx_pr_ratelimited(level, encl, fmt, ...)			\
> + pr_ ## level ## _ratelimited("[%d:0x%p] " fmt, \
> + pid_nr((encl)->tgid), \
> + (void *)(encl)->base, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +
> +#define sgx_dbg(encl, fmt, ...) \
> + sgx_pr_ratelimited(debug, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_info(encl, fmt, ...) \
> + sgx_pr_ratelimited(info, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_warn(encl, fmt, ...) \
> + sgx_pr_ratelimited(warn, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_err(encl, fmt, ...) \
> + sgx_pr_ratelimited(err, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_crit(encl, fmt, ...) \
> + sgx_pr_ratelimited(crit, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)

I thought the pr_* thingies were to keep everyone from having to do this
in each driver. Why did you need this?

Can you do any better than a 2,000-line patch? For instance, could you
break out the memory management portion into its own part and have that
reviewed by mm folks? Or the ioctl()'s by device driver folks?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-08 21:37    [W:0.353 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site