On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:46:45PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > 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. tglx, Darren, First thanks for your commit specific comments. I'll deal with them and appreciate the effort you've done reviewing the code. I'm just busy doing revamping sgx_page_cache.c based on the feedback I got from Dave Hansen. After I'm done with that I'll response to those emails. I'm sorry about the latency. I gave some feedback to the tglx's original response. If something is lacking, please ping me. /Jarkko
