Hi Jarkko
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:03:17 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri Apr 26, 2024 at 5:28 PM EEST, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 4/16/24 07:15, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 8:42 AM EEST, Huang, Kai wrote:
> Yes, exactly. I'd take one week break and cycle the kselftest part
> internally a bit as I said my previous response. I'm sure that there
> is experise inside Intel how to implement it properly. I.e. take some
> time to find the right person, and wait as long as that person has a
> bit of bandwidth to go through the test and suggest modifications.
Folks, I worry that this series is getting bogged down in the selftests.
Yes, selftests are important. But getting _some_ tests in the kernel
is substantially more important than getting perfect tests.
I don't think Haitao needs to "cycle" this back inside Intel.
The problem with the tests was that they are hard to run anything else
than Ubuntu (and perhaps Debian). It is hopefully now taken care of.
Selftests do not have to be perfect but at minimum they need to be
runnable.
I need ret-test the latest series because it is possible that I did not
have right flags (I was travelling few days thus have not done it yet).
BR, Jarkko
Let me know if you want me to send v13 before testing or you can just use
the sgx_cg_upstream_v12_plus branch in my repo.
Also thanks for the "Reviewed-by" tags for other patches. But I've not got
"Reviewed-by" from you for patches #8-12 (not sure I missed). Could you go
through those alsoe when you get chance?
Thanks
Haitao
