On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:06:29PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 08:32:13AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 3/13/21 8:01 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > Replace the ad-hoc code with a sgx_free_epc_page(), in order to make sure > > > that all the relevant checks and book keeping is done, while freeing a > > > borrowed EPC page, and remove redundant code. EREMOVE inside > > > sgx_free_epc_page() does not change the semantics, as EREMOVE to an > > > uninitialize pages is a nop. > > > > ^ uninitialized > > > > I know this is a short patch, but this changelog still falls a bit short > > for me. > > > > Why is this patch a part of _this_ series? What *problem* does it > > solve, related to this series? > > I'm thinking of merging sgx_epc_section and sgx_numa_node. That's why I > kept it as part of the series. > > Also, in any case it's better to clean up duplicate functionality. The > code is essentially open coded implementation of sgx_free_epc_page() > without EREMOVE. > > > It would also be nice to remind me why the EREMOVE is redundant. Why > > didn't we need one before? What put the page in the uninitialized > > state? Is EREMOVE guaranteed to do nothing? How expensive is it? > > EREMOVE gets removed by KVM series from sgx_free_epc_page() anyway. > > Maybe should re-send this patch, or series, after KVM series is merged. > Then there is no explaining with EREMOVE, as sgx_free_epc_page() won't > contain it. Anyway, forgot to put the end statement: I'm cool with dropping this but I'll also send this right after KVM SGX series has landed as separate patch, if I drop this now. /Jarkko
