On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:25:58 -0600, Michal Koutný <mkou...@suse.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 01:06:27PM -0800, Haitao Huang <haitao.hu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:+static int sgx_epc_cgroup_alloc(struct misc_cg *cg); + +const struct misc_res_ops sgx_epc_cgroup_ops = { + .alloc = sgx_epc_cgroup_alloc, + .free = sgx_epc_cgroup_free, +}; ++static void sgx_epc_misc_init(struct misc_cg *cg, struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)+{ + cg->res[MISC_CG_RES_SGX_EPC].priv = epc_cg; + epc_cg->cg = cg; +}This is a possibly a nit pick but I share it here for consideration. Would it be more prudent to have the signature like alloc(struct misc_res *res, struct misc_cg *cg) so that implementations are free of the assumption of how cg and res are stored? Thanks, Michal
Will do. Thanks Haitao
