Hi Jarkko, On 8/30/2022 7:28 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:55:47PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 8/29/2022 8:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> From: Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Add a new test case which is same as augment_via_eaccept but adds a >>> larger number of EPC pages to stress test EAUG via EACCEPT. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Co-developed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> v2: >>> - Addressed Reinette's feedback: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/24bd8e42-ff4e-0090-d9e1-cd81e4807f21@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c | 5 +- >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.c | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++--- >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h | 3 +- >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/sigstruct.c | 2 +- >>> 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> There seems to be at least three patches merged into one here: >> 1) Update SGX selftests to create enclaves with provided size dedicated >> to EDMM (this change causes a lot of noise and distracts from the test >> addition). >> 2) The mrenclave_ecreate() fix (which is still incomplete). >> 3) The actual test addition. > > I would agree on this on a kernel patch but not for kselftest patch. It > does not really give useful value here. This adds a test and that is a > good enough granularity in my opinion, unless some major architecture > work is required as precursory. It is not the case here. I must say that for many good reasons this goes against one of the fundamental rules of kernel patches: separate logical changes into separate patches. This is your domain though so of course the work within it follows your guidance and I will not pursue it further. > >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c >>> index 94bdeac1cf04..7de1b15c90b1 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c >>> @@ -171,7 +171,8 @@ uint64_t encl_get_entry(struct encl *encl, const char *symbol) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -bool encl_load(const char *path, struct encl *encl, unsigned long heap_size) >>> +bool encl_load(const char *path, struct encl *encl, unsigned long heap_size, >>> + unsigned long edmm_size) >>> { >> >> checkpatch.pl informs about alignment issues above and also a few other places. > > Weird. I did run checkpatch through these. Will revisit. I usually run checkpatch.pl with "--strict". Reinette
