[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a37b0156c076d3875f906e970071cb230e526df1.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:04:19 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.de>
Cc: Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Colm MacCarthaigh <colmmacc@...zon.com>,
Bjoern Doebel <doebel@...zon.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Frank van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>,
Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@...zon.de>,
Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Balbir Singh <sblbir@...zon.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Stewart Smith <trawets@...zon.com>,
Uwe Dannowski <uwed@...zon.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
ne-devel-upstream@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/18] nitro_enclaves: Init misc device providing the
ioctl interface
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 15:12 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> So at runtime, after all is booted and up and going, you just ripped
> cores out from under someone's feet? :)
>
> And the code really handles writing to that value while the module is
> already loaded and up and running? At a quick glance, it didn't seem
> like it would handle that very well as it only is checked at ne_init()
> time.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> Anyway, yes, if you can dynamically do this at runtime, that's great,
> but it feels ackward to me to rely on one configuration thing as a
> module parameter, and everything else through the ioctl interface.
> Unification would seem to be a good thing, right?
I personally still prefer a sysfs file :) I really don't like module
parameters as a way to do such things.
Cheers,
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists