[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCzeA8wf--o988-j@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 22:55:15 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
"Scarlata, Vincent R" <vincent.r.scarlata@...el.com>,
"Cai, Chong" <chongc@...gle.com>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
"dionnaglaze@...gle.com" <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
"bondarn@...gle.com" <bondarn@...gle.com>,
"Raynor, Scott" <scott.raynor@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] x86/sgx: Introduce a counter to count the
sgx_(vepc_)open()
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 06:25:04AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > Maybe just use raw atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() at the sites?
> >
> > IMHO, it makes only sense to wrap, when it makes sense to wrap.
>
> You mean for this patch or overall? For overall we discussed in v4
> why we would like to raise it to atomic64.
> Or do I misunderstand your comment?
So I was thinking whether we want wrappers but I guess we can keep
them.
>
> Best Regards,
> Elena.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists