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 19:30:39 +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>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an
 error
Message-ID: <YxIvr33xgjCbW6qu@kernel.org>
References: <20220831173829.126661-1-jarkko@kernel.org>
 <20220831173829.126661-3-jarkko@kernel.org>
 <24906e57-461f-6c94-9e78-0d8507df01bb@intel.com>
 <YxEp8Ji+ukLBoNE+@kernel.org>
 <84b8eb06-7b77-675f-5bc8-292fe27dd2f5@intel.com>
 <YxFGykqMb+TD4L4l@kernel.org>
 <YxIEm4uHVvUY/rv6@kernel.org>
 <YxInD1m7rEnQ/yxW@kernel.org>
 <b418161b-2613-4bb9-9269-b4995de65794@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b418161b-2613-4bb9-9269-b4995de65794@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:08:23AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 9/2/2022 8:53 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:26:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		pr_err("%ld unsanitized pages\n", left_dirty);
> > 
> > Yeah, I know, should be 'left_dirty'. I just quickly drafted
> > the patch for the email.
> > 
> 
> No problem - you did mention that it was an informal patch.
> 
> (btw ... also watch out for the long local parameter returned
> as an unsigned long and the signed vs unsigned printing
> format string.) I also continue to recommend that you trim

Point taken.

> that backtrace ... this patch is heading to x86 area where
> this is required.

Should I just cut the whole stack trace, and leave the
part before it?

BR, Jarkko