Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 15 Jan 2022 02:58:08 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: account backing pages
Message-ID: <YeIcIMNUK/ujMTMQ@iki.fi>
References: <20220107181618.6597-1-kristen@linux.intel.com>
 <20220107181618.6597-3-kristen@linux.intel.com>
 <Ydm2Qk8JFwgdueZa@iki.fi>
 <fda3bb7bd557a37112a4f7c6c205871addda1bd3.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <YeIMqd+o//M3vB6e@iki.fi>
 <3b7e79ea-18f2-afe2-be4e-401524b481f7@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3b7e79ea-18f2-afe2-be4e-401524b481f7@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:55:43PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/14/22 3:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> I can understand your hesitation, but I agree with Dave here that
> >> wrapping the function makes the code more clear. I would prefer to keep
> >> this the way it is.
> > What if sgx_encl_get_backing() was changed as "static inline", if the
> > only motivation is encapsulation?
> 
> What would the purpose be of adding an 'inline' to the function definition?

Agreed, not much sense to do this. I just had troubles to get the way
things were encapsulated before your response.

/Jarkko