[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c5df14e-3028-46b3-fe93-aa6ba8352317@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:15:34 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Cc: sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
npmccallum@...hat.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Serge Ayoun <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 09/13] x86/sgx: Enclave Page Cache (EPC) memory
manager
On 08/27/2018 11:53 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> +struct sgx_epc_page_ops {
> + bool (*get)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
> + void (*put)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
> + bool (*reclaim)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
> + void (*block)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
> + void (*write)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
> +};
Why do we need a fancy, slow (retpoline'd) set of function pointers when
we only have one user of these (the SGX driver)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists