On Wed Nov 8, 2023 at 10:46 PM EET, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/8/23 12:31, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> > Just a kind follow-up: from what I can see, this series has not been
> > merged into the x86/sgx branch of tip yet (assuming that's where it
> > should go next)?
> >
> > Apologies if I've overlooked
On Wed Nov 8, 2023 at 10:31 PM EET, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> On 23.10.23 23:32, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Oct 13, 2023 at 2:45 PM EEST, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> >> On 10.10.23 11:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> Folks (sorry for top posting): I've now taken my old NUC7 out of the
> >>> dust and
On 08.11.23 21:46, Dave Hansen wrote:
Yes, you've missed something. For your reading pleasure:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/2.Process.html?highlight=merge%20window
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html
My bad, thank you for pointing out the
On 11/8/23 12:31, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> Just a kind follow-up: from what I can see, this series has not been
> merged into the x86/sgx branch of tip yet (assuming that's where it
> should go next)?
>
> Apologies if I've overlooked anything, and please let me know if there's
> something on my end
On 23.10.23 23:32, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Fri Oct 13, 2023 at 2:45 PM EEST, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
On 10.10.23 11:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
Folks (sorry for top posting): I've now taken my old NUC7 out of the
dust and tested the series :-)
Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
Thanks for testing
On Fri Oct 13, 2023 at 2:45 PM EEST, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> On 10.10.23 11:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Folks (sorry for top posting): I've now taken my old NUC7 out of the
> > dust and tested the series :-)
> >
> > Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
>
> Thanks for testing this Jarkko! Not sure on next
On 10.10.23 14:11, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
Dave, since there was already sort of talk about detaching this
code from kernel tree so that Jo could work on "pure C" runtime
would it make sense to dual-license this first in the kernel tree?
E.g. Jo could send a patch once this is merged with a new
On 10.10.23 11:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
Folks (sorry for top posting): I've now taken my old NUC7 out of the
dust and tested the series :-)
Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
Thanks for testing this Jarkko! Not sure on next steps, do you want me
to re-post the series with the Tested-by tag for
Dave, since there was already sort of talk about detaching this
code from kernel tree so that Jo could work on "pure C" runtime
would it make sense to dual-license this first in the kernel tree?
E.g. Jo could send a patch once this is merged with a new SPDX
platter and we can then ack that?
Just
Folks (sorry for top posting): I've now taken my old NUC7 out of the
dust and tested the series :-)
Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
Off-topic: I wish both Intel and AMD straighten up and deliver some
"home friendly" development hardware for the latest stuff. Just my
stance but the biggest quality
Thank you, Kai! I'm not familiar with any next steps to get this merged
upstream, but atm all commits in this series have been reviewed by at
least Jarkko. Let me know if anything further is needed from my side!
Best,
Jo
On 05.10.23 23:25, Huang, Kai wrote:
Hi Jo,
Just FYI I won't review
Hi Jo,
Just FYI I won't review the rest patches in this series. One of the reasons is
I am not that familiar with the rest. Jarkko has reviewed anyway :-).
On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 17:38 +0200, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch series ensures that all SGX selftests succeed when compiling
Hi,
This patch series ensures that all SGX selftests succeed when compiling with
optimizations (as tested with -O{0,1,2,3,s} for both gcc 11.3.0 and clang
14.0.0). The aim of the patches is to avoid reliance on undefined,
compiler-specific behavior that can make the test results fragile.
As far
13 matches
Mail list logo
