Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 03:00:33 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest
 augment_via_eaccept_long
Message-ID: <YxFHoRBW3ZumV0qQ@kernel.org>
References: <20220830031206.13449-1-jarkko@kernel.org>
 <20220830031206.13449-5-jarkko@kernel.org>
 <bd5285dd-d6dd-8a46-fca9-728db5e2f369@intel.com>
 <Yw7HOIfnaO0IcDiX@kernel.org>
 <7c85f675-db1a-eb5c-2575-759d662a0ecd@intel.com>
 <YxEvUm9jmHaAbdU2@kernel.org>
 <793bd158-1e1b-2dad-5841-081d840d45d8@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <793bd158-1e1b-2dad-5841-081d840d45d8@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:11:34PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 9/1/2022 3:16 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> On 8/30/2022 7:28 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:55:47PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >>>> On 8/29/2022 8:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> >>>> There seems to be at least three patches merged into one here:
> >>>> 1) Update SGX selftests to create enclaves with provided size dedicated
> >>>>    to EDMM (this change causes a lot of noise and distracts from the test
> >>>>    addition).
> >>>> 2) The mrenclave_ecreate() fix (which is still incomplete).
> >>>> 3) The actual test addition.
> >>>
> >>> I would agree on this on a kernel patch but not for kselftest patch. It
> >>> does not really give useful value here. This adds a test and that is a
> >>> good enough granularity in my opinion, unless some major architecture
> >>> work is required as precursory. It is not the case here.
> >>
> >> I must say that for many good reasons this goes against one of the
> >> fundamental rules of kernel patches: separate logical changes into
> >> separate patches. This is your domain though so of course the work
> >> within it follows your guidance and I will not pursue it further.
> > 
> > I don't consider kselftest patch exactly same as kernel patch
> 
> You are not alone.
> 
> > but I can split this. What would be good enough?
> 
> I identified three candidate patches in my original response that
> is quoted above, but as I mentioned I understand the sentiment
> and this is your domain so I will not insist on it.

OK, fair enough, I'll rework on this. It's my domain but
at least my own aim is always only satisfy on consensus
:-)

BR, Jarkko