[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <931e05840165b8285acf8d13ded01fb233b6549c.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:58 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Cathy Zhang <cathy.zhang@...el.com>, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] x86/sgx: Provide indication of life-cycle of EPC
pages
On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 15:15 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/21/21 2:28 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Since there are multiple uses of the "owner" field with different types
> > > change the sgx_epc_page structure to define an anonymous union with
> > > each of the uses explicitly called out.
> > But it's still always a pointer.
> >
> > And not only that, but two alternative fields in that union have *exactly* the
> > same type, so it's kind of artifically representing the problem more complex
> > than it really is.
> >
> > I'm not just getting, why all this complexity, and not a few casts instead?
>
> I suggested this. It makes the structure more self-describing because
> it explicitly lists the possibles uses of the space in the structure.
>
> Maybe I stare at 'struct page' and its 4 unions too much and I'm
> enamored by their shininess. But, in the end, I prefer unions to casting.
Yeah, packing data into constrained space (as in the case of struct page) is
the only application for, where you can speak of a quantitative decision, when
you pick union.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists