Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 05/15] x86/sgx: Add sgx_epc_lru_list to encapsulate LRU list | Date | Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:52:12 -0600 | From | "Haitao Huang" <> |
| |
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 17:28:32 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 4:09 AM EET, Haitao Huang wrote: >> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> >> >> Introduce a data structure to wrap the existing reclaimable list and its >> spinlock. Each cgroup later will have one instance of this structure to >> track EPC pages allocated for processes associated with the same cgroup. >> Just like the global SGX reclaimer (ksgxd), an EPC cgroup reclaims pages >> from the reclaimable list in this structure when its usage reaches near >> its limit. >> >> Use this structure to encapsulate the LRU list and its lock used by the >> global reclaimer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> >> Co-developed-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com> >> Co-developed-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com> > > I'd put author as last sob but that said I'm not sure if there is rigid > rule to do so. Thus not saying must here. >
The documentation says "the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch."
So this should be OK. [...] >> struct sgx_epc_page *__sgx_alloc_epc_page(void); >> void sgx_free_epc_page(struct sgx_epc_page *page); >> > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> > > BR, Jarkko > Thank you! Haitao
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |