On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Darren Hart wrote: > > @intel: I removed intel-sgx-kernel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx from CC because I can > do without the silly moderation spam of that list. Please disable that > nonsense. > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:45:28PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Is SGX considered architectural or not? A quick search of the SDM > > includes it in Volume 3: > > > > Volume 3: Includes the full system programming guide, parts 1, 2, 3, and > > 4. Describes the operating-system support environment of Intel® 64 and > > IA-32 architectures, including: memory management, protection, task > > management, interrupt and exception handling, multi-processor support, > > thermal and power management features, debugging, performance > > monitoring, system management mode, virtual machine extensions (VMX) > > instructions, Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), and Intel® > > Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX). > > > > https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sdm > > > > Depending on the answer, this impacts whether this belongs in > > drivers/platform/x86 or arch/x86/platform per our recent agreement with > > Thomas. > > > > Thomas, Mingo, HPA, do you wish to see this organized/located > > differently than it is here in v5? > > This is architecural. From the cursory read of that series it seems there > are two parts to it: > > 1) The actual core handling, which should be in arch/x86 because that > hardly qualifies as a 'platform' device driver. > I'm supportive of that. > 2) The user space interface, which can be separated out perhaps. > > I don't know how intertwingled they are, but that's hard to tell from the > actual patches w/o doing a deep inspection. Jarkko should be able to answer > that. Jarkko, some additional context on your placement decisions would be helpful. Thanks, -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
