On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 07:39 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/26/21 1:30 AM, Kai Huang wrote: > > Remove SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED check and warning. This cannot > > happen, as enclave pages are freed only at the time when encl->refcount > > triggers, i.e. when both VFS and the page reclaimer have given up on > > their references. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c > > index 8df81a3ed945..f330abdb5bb1 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c > > @@ -605,8 +605,6 @@ void sgx_free_epc_page(struct sgx_epc_page *page) > > struct sgx_epc_section *section = &sgx_epc_sections[page->section]; > > int ret; > > > > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(page->flags & SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED); > > I'm all for cleaning up silly, useless warnings. But, don't we usually > put warnings in for things that we don't expect to be able to happen? > > In other words, I'm fine with removing this if it hasn't been a valuable > warning and we don't expect it to become a valuable warning. But, the > changelog doesn't say that. It also doesn't explain what this patch is > doing in this series. > > Why is this her? Hi Jarkko, I don't have deep understanding of SGX driver. Would you help to answer?
