On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:11:34PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On 9/1/2022 3:16 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> 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: > > >>>> 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. > > > > I don't consider kselftest patch exactly same as kernel patch > > You are not alone. > > > but I can split this. What would be good enough? > > I identified three candidate patches in my original response that > is quoted above, but as I mentioned I understand the sentiment > and this is your domain so I will not insist on it. OK, fair enough, I'll rework on this. It's my domain but at least my own aim is always only satisfy on consensus :-) BR, Jarkko
