On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:38:34AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On 9/2/2022 9:30 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:08:23AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> Hi Jarkko, > >> > >> On 9/2/2022 8:53 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:26:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>>> + if (ret) > >>>> + pr_err("%ld unsanitized pages\n", left_dirty); > >>> > >>> Yeah, I know, should be 'left_dirty'. I just quickly drafted > >>> the patch for the email. > >>> > >> > >> No problem - you did mention that it was an informal patch. > >> > >> (btw ... also watch out for the long local parameter returned > >> as an unsigned long and the signed vs unsigned printing > >> format string.) I also continue to recommend that you trim > > > > Point taken. > > > >> that backtrace ... this patch is heading to x86 area where > >> this is required. > > > > Should I just cut the whole stack trace, and leave the > > part before it? > > The trace is printed because of a WARN_ON() in the code. > I do not think there is anything very helpful in that trace. > I think the only helpful parts are the WARN itself that includes > the line number and then information on which kernel it was > encountered on. > > How about something like (please note the FIXME within): > > " > Paul reported the following WARN while running kernel vFIXME: > WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 83 at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c:401 ksgxd+0x1b7/0x1d0 Yeah, this is a great idea, the use of WARN() is the whole point. Thank you. BR, Jarkko