On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:40:57PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-03-20 at 18:21 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > 13 files changed, 1657 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/Makefile
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/driver.h
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/ioctl.c
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
> >
> > Shouldn't the driver be located somewhere under drivers/, but not under arch/x86?
> >
> > I don't think x86 maintainers should have the burden to review every code
> > change made to SGX driver?
>
> I rather prefer to have it in x86. Why? Because driver code has a tendency
> to get under the radar.
And having everything under arch/x86 will likely reduce the maintenance
burden for everyone:
- Doesn't require taking changes through multiple trees or coordinating
acks from multiple maintainers.
- Significantly reduces the number of functions, macros, structs and
variables that needs to be exposed in asm/sgx.h (actually eliminates
it entirely at this point) which allows for sane code organization as
opposed to dumping everything in one big header.
- Mostly avoids bikeshedding over whether something is architectural
or belongs in the so called driver.
