[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b418161b-2613-4bb9-9269-b4995de65794@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2022 09:08:23 -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>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an
error
Hi Jarkko,
On 9/2/2022 8:53 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:26:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%ld unsanitized pages\n", left_dirty);
>
> Yeah, I know, should be 'left_dirty'. I just quickly drafted
> the patch for the email.
>
No problem - you did mention that it was an informal patch.
(btw ... also watch out for the long local parameter returned
as an unsigned long and the signed vs unsigned printing
format string.) I also continue to recommend that you trim
that backtrace ... this patch is heading to x86 area where
this is required.
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists