Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 08:45:53 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, nhorman@redhat.com,
        npmccallum@redhat.com, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
        serge.ayoun@intel.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 09/13] x86/sgx: Enclave Page Cache (EPC) memory
 manager
Message-ID: <20180904154553.GA5412@linux.intel.com>
References: <20180827185507.17087-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20180827185507.17087-10-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHp75Vf39J8U3VnmxP+BBYi7rqzidxdD58Yx_fdnLXRro_QBgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180904153803.GC8344@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180904153803.GC8344@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:38:03PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:02:16PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +       WARN(ret < 0, "sgx: cannot free page, reclaim in-progress");
> > > +       WARN(ret > 0, "sgx: EREMOVE returned %d (0x%x)", ret, ret);
> > 
> > I'm not sure (though it's easy to check) that you need sgx: prefix
> > here. WARN() might take pr_fmt() if defined.
> 
> Sean, you took care of this one. Was it so that WARN() does not respect
> pr_fmt?

Yep, WARN() doesn't respect pr_fmt.