[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c3717761-7b00-db03-117a-0b672c865fa9@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 11:09:21 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] selftests/sgx: retry the ioctls returned with EAGAIN
Hi Jarkko,
On 8/30/2022 7:31 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:56:29PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Haitao and Jarkko,
>>
>>
>> selftests/sgx: Retry the ioctl()s returned with EAGAIN
>>
>>
>> On 8/29/2022 8:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> From: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> For EMODT and EREMOVE ioctls with a large range, kernel
>>
>> ioctl()s?
>
> Ioctl is common enough to be considered as noun and is
> widely phrased like that in commit messages. I don't
> see any added clarity.
ok. I was asked to make this change in the SGX2 patches and
thought that I should propagate this advice :)
>>> + modt_ioc.count = 0;
>>> + } else
>>> + break;
>>
>> Watch out for unbalanced braces (also later in patch). This causes
>> checkpatch.pl noise.
>
> Again. I did run checkpatch to all of these. Will revisit.
It looks like I see it because I use "checkpatch.pl --strict".
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists