[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e71d76b2-4368-4627-abd4-2163e6786a20@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 14:10:16 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
jarkko@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tj@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: zhiquan1.li@...el.com, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/18] x86/sgx: Use sgx_epc_lru_lists for existing
active page list
On 12/2/22 13:51, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> I know - and originally the addition of unreclaimable was added later,
> but when I posted the RFC I felt there was some misunderstanding about
> what this data structure was and how it would be used because the
> addition of the unreclaimable bits came later. So I stuck both lists in
> one so it'd be a better view of what the data structure would look
> like.
You're not insane for thinking that.
But, it's really OK to introduce an abstraction that *looks* silly on
its face at first. You can easily just make up for it by saying:
struct silly_abstraction {
struct list_head list;
}
Oh, boy does my structure look silly. It's a structure with a
single list_head. Why oh why would I do something silly like
that? Well, for now, the code has but one list. Soon, I'll
add a whole smorgasbord of lists. Bear with me for now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists