On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:36:17PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 01:06:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:37:42AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Move the post-reclaim half of sgx_free_page() to a standalone helper so > > > that it can be used in flows where the page is known to be > > > non-reclaimable. > > > > The call sites wher it is known to be reclaimable should handle the > > error instead of creating call site specific versions of the function. > > What if we completely split the function(s)? The existing callers of > sgx_free_page() stay as is, there is one and only one "free_page()", we > don't take sgx_active_page_list_lock in most flows, and the one case > where failure is acceptable gets to do its thing. I think this'd make > both of us happy. E.g.: The split is a clean way to sort this out. Makes sense also from "symmetry" perspective: we don't mark pages reclaimable in sgx_alloc_page(). /Jarkko
