Re: [PATCH 4/6] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest augment_via_eaccept_long

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> 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:
> >>> From: Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Add a new test case which is same as augment_via_eaccept but adds a
> >>> larger number of EPC pages to stress test EAUG via EACCEPT.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@intel.com>
> >>> Co-developed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> v2:
> >>> - Addressed Reinette's feedback:
> >>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/24bd8e42-ff4e-0090-d9e1-cd81e4807f21@intel.com/
> >>> ---
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c      |   5 +-
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.c      | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h      |   3 +-
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/sigstruct.c |   2 +-
> >>>  4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> 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
but I can split this. What would be good enough?

> I usually run checkpatch.pl with "--strict".

I honestly did not know that this option was available :-)
First time I hear of it.

Thanks.

> 
> Reinette

BR, Jarkko