> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:15:35AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > Sorry I am not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate? > > > > IMHO it's better to put architectural staff (such as data structures > > defined in SDM and used by hardware) into one header, and other > > non-architectural staff into another header, so that the user can > > include the one that is actually required, but doesn't have to include > > one big header which includes all SGX related data structures and > > functions. > > And including one big - (not sure about "big" - we have a lot bigger) - header is > an actual problem because? > > What I'm trying to point you at is, to not give some artificial reasons why the > headers should be separate - artificial as the SDM says it is architectural and so > on - but give a reason from software design perspective why the separation is > needed: better build times, less symbols exposed to modules, blabla and so on. > > If you don't have such reasons, then it all is just unnecessary and not needed > churn. And in that case, keeping it simple is the proper approach. > > Those headers can always be split later, when really needed. > > HTH. Thanks for feedback! I'll take a deeper look at the code and give feedback (too late for me today). > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
