On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 05:52:17PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:46:38PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:21:11PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > In other words, sgx_alloc_epc_section() is poorly named. It doesn't > > > actually allocate EPC, it allocates kernel structures to map and track EPC. > > > sgx_(un)map_epc_section() would be more accurate and would hopefully > > > alleviate some of the confusion. > > > > Makes sense. > > > > > I have no objection to renaming __sgx_alloc_try_alloc_page() to something > > > like sgx_alloc_epc_page_section or whatever, but IMO using get/put will be > > > horrendously confusing. > > > > Ok. My only issue is that the naming nomenclature sounds strange and > > confusing as it is. "try" in an "alloc" function is kinda tautological - > > of course the function will try to do its best. :) > > Heh, so what you're saying is we should add __sgx_really_try_alloc_page()? > > > And there are three functions having "alloc" in the name so I can > > imagine someone getting very confused when having to stare at that code. > > > > So at least naming them in a way so that it is clear what kind of pages > > they "allocate" - i.e., what they actually do - would be a step in the > > right direction... > > Ya, and things will only get more confusing when actual NUMA awareness gets > thrown into the mix. > > Jarkko, splicing in the NUMA awareness code, what do you think about: > > sgx_alloc_epc_section -> sgx_map_epc_section > sgx_free_epc_section -> sgx_unmap_epc_section Here alloc makes sense because memory gets allocated for the data structures. > sgx_alloc_page -> sgx_alloc_epc_page > sgx_free_page -> sgx_free_epc_page > > sgx_try_alloc_page -> sgx_alloc_epc_page_node > __sgx_try_alloc_page -> sgx_alloc_epc_page_section I'm going with sgx_grab_page() and sgx_try_grab_page(). /Jarkko
