From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E655A52F9B; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:23:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708374210; cv=none; b=fjba62Ar33FrTx/M5Jx6hKgXiw2FQLN6cAL5mECYn2oNrEZqtIqdOGnIj4dg80ecHqyj6TLY4KB+KGriSglLuwl24iq+hh3epZAGrH8cSaMMgTo4dlOCU5D5TpENYB6CxDEn0tRpOHnZU4ZGmC0eZD1xpjl//UMNXDpLB4JqoL0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708374210; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ixHV3knXhwlKaNm/H5VZf90xSon7xbNx8HdzY1OHTaE=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Cc:Subject: References:In-Reply-To; b=Dpehsvbmg6I9Ca1ZlsApovOj41KiM472ygwU72XtYhNAeYqEAWtquSUeKQdUbcLzagDQpZD3CiC9XssYoExRi/Kg8saz6N7ZoeKOtl07YcpoMk3G3zQcLI93qk8DleYBhTl9lNlJ+Ar2bFr3jEKaC2/mKTg4fzXaSAgdG1HqvQQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OjpUcB1I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OjpUcB1I" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3F0DC433F1; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:23:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708374209; bh=ixHV3knXhwlKaNm/H5VZf90xSon7xbNx8HdzY1OHTaE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OjpUcB1IXEiERVGSZfOvbUCkCuR4TmpnrjXZViMy49DFN74vJyxOHJLpZnI/mluoy 5t+48D1/yfNRnngCi3+O0k93X+tzsXNC7dAfSJM1dwk67yAW2JS1kc+dPAxzYGD9Va OV5MRb5nxQL8BnJo8n/GRJqfacljYIXCAX4FOOisF+xFEjguF/rcH7Lmv+D3rQGvaA IQbOSumem2riEQiubkyQhsh9xN9QoS7/OMHYNw+DwKzoexy78hpiAEfsMZdIvzZ3w7 OWAMjZu1i7F0TgNnDh9tR9RVkP93uO1muS6llIweMUmrsexc+d2ZHttmbOHLbMQJlU T3j5ctixMwO1w== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:23:23 +0000 Message-Id: From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Haitao Huang" Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/sgx: Remove 'reclaim' boolean parameters X-Mailer: aerc 0.15.2 References: <20240219153957.9957-1-haitao.huang@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20240219153957.9957-1-haitao.huang@linux.intel.com> On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 3:39 PM UTC, 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 > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen I think this is for better. My view point for kernel patches overally is that: 1. A feature should leave the subsystem in cleaner state as far as the existing framework of doing things goes. 2. A bugfix can sometimes do the opposite if corner case requires some weird dance to perform. BR, Jarkko