Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:42:29 +0000 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/sgx: Remove 'reclaim' boolean parameters | From | "Jarkko Sakkinen" <> |
| |
On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 3:56 PM UTC, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 2/19/24 07:39, Haitao Huang wrote: > > Remove all boolean parameters for 'reclaim' from the function > > sgx_alloc_epc_page() and its callers by making two versions of each > > function. > > > > Also opportunistically remove non-static declaration of > > __sgx_alloc_epc_page() and a typo > > > > Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com> > > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++------ > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h | 6 ++- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 23 ++++++++--- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h | 4 +- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/virt.c | 2 +- > > 6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) > > Jarkko, did this turn out how you expected? > > I think passing around a function pointer to *only* communicate 1 bit of > information is a _bit_ overkill here. > > Simply replacing the bool with: > > enum sgx_reclaim { > SGX_NO_RECLAIM, > SGX_DO_RECLAIM > }; > > would do the same thing. Right? > > Are you sure you want a function pointer for this?
To look this in context I drafted quickly two branches representing imaginary next version of the patch set.
I guess this would simpler and totally sufficient approach.
With this approach I'd then change also:
[PATCH v9 04/15] x86/sgx: Implement basic EPC misc cgroup functionality
And add the enum-parameter already in that patch with just "no reclaim" enum. I.e. then 10/15 will add only "do reclaim" and the new functionality.
BR, Jarkko
| |