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

Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-09-02T00:00:42Z

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