[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB57502D692F699DB8D8FCFCBEE79FA@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 06:25:04 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
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()
> 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?
Best Regards,
Elena.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists