RE: [RFC PATCH v5 08/26] x86/sgx: Expose SGX architectural definitions to the kernel

Huang, Kai
2021-02-16T11:57:48Z

>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:15:35AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > Sorry I am not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate?
> >
> > IMHO it's better to put architectural staff (such as data structures
> > defined in SDM and used by hardware) into one header, and other
> > non-architectural staff into another header, so that the user can
> > include the one that is actually required, but doesn't have to include
> > one big header which includes all SGX related data structures and
> > functions.
>
> And including one big - (not sure about "big" - we have a lot bigger) - header is
> an actual problem because?
>
> What I'm trying to point you at is, to not give some artificial reasons why the
> headers should be separate - artificial as the SDM says it is architectural and so
> on - but give a reason from software design perspective why the separation is
> needed: better build times, less symbols exposed to modules, blabla and so on.
>
> If you don't have such reasons, then it all is just unnecessary and not needed
> churn. And in that case, keeping it simple is the proper approach.
>
> Those headers can always be split later, when really needed.
>
> HTH.

Thanks for feedback! I'll take a deeper look at the code and give feedback (too late for me today).

>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette