lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 10/13] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard Extensions
    From
    Date
    > +#define sgx_pr_ratelimited(level, encl, fmt, ...)			\
    > + pr_ ## level ## _ratelimited("[%d:0x%p] " fmt, \
    > + pid_nr((encl)->tgid), \
    > + (void *)(encl)->base, ##__VA_ARGS__)
    > +
    > +#define sgx_dbg(encl, fmt, ...) \
    > + sgx_pr_ratelimited(debug, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
    > +#define sgx_info(encl, fmt, ...) \
    > + sgx_pr_ratelimited(info, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
    > +#define sgx_warn(encl, fmt, ...) \
    > + sgx_pr_ratelimited(warn, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
    > +#define sgx_err(encl, fmt, ...) \
    > + sgx_pr_ratelimited(err, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
    > +#define sgx_crit(encl, fmt, ...) \
    > + sgx_pr_ratelimited(crit, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)

    I thought the pr_* thingies were to keep everyone from having to do this
    in each driver. Why did you need this?

    Can you do any better than a 2,000-line patch? For instance, could you
    break out the memory management portion into its own part and have that
    reviewed by mm folks? Or the ioctl()'s by device driver folks?

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-06-08 21:37    [W:4.056 / U:0.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site