On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 09:34 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On 4/14/2022 4:25 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:10 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > IMHO, we can pull this after +1 version. I think I had only one nit > > (one character to a struct name it was), and I've been testing this > > series *extensively* with real-world code (wasm run-time that we are > > developing), so I'm confident that it is *good enough*. > > Thank you very much. I am aware of other teams successfully building > on and testing this work. I do hope that they could also provide an > ack to help increase the confidence in this work. > > > > > Reinette, for the EMODT patch, as long as you fix the struct name > > you can add my reviewed-by and also tested-by to that patch before > > you send it! It's so narrow change. > > Thank you. I will make the struct name change and also plan to > make the same change to the function names in that patch to ensure that > everything is consistent in that regard. I think getting ack from anyone working Graphene-SGX would bring a great coverage of different use cases. It's different same of Enarx in the sense that both can run arbitrary applicatons written e.g. with C++ although approaches are on opposite sides. > Reinette BR; Jarkko
