Re: [PATCH v11 10/13] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard Extensions

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 12:35:51PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > +#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?

Prefixing with the enclave information.

> 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?

I'll see if this could be broken down into two i.e. driver without
swapping callbacks and one for the callbacks.

/Jarkko