Reorg:
void sgx_cgroup_init(void)
{
struct workqueue_struct *wq;
/* eagerly allocate the workqueue: */
wq = alloc_workqueue("sgx_cg_wq", wq_unbound | wq_freezable,
wq_unbound_max_active);
if (!wq) {
pr_warn("sgx_cg_wq creation failed\n");
return;
sgx_cgroup_try_charge() expects sgx_cg_wq, so it would break unless we
check and return 0 which was the initially implemented in v12. But then
Kai had some concern on that we expose all the interface files to allow
user to set limits but we don't enforce. To keep it simple we settled
down back to BUG_ON().
[...]
This would only happen rarely and user can add
command-line to disable SGX if s/he really wants to start kernel in this
case, just can't do SGX.
Just to be clear that I don't like BUG_ON() either. It's inevitable you
will get attention because of using it.
This is a compromise that you don't want to reset "capacity" to 0 when
alloc_workqueue() fails.
There are existing code where BUG_ON() is used during the kernel early
boot code when memory allocation fails (e.g., see cgroup_init_subsys()),
so it might be acceptable to use BUG_ON() here, but it's up to
maintainers to decide whether it is OK.
[...]
With "--strict" flag I also catched these:
CHECK: spinlock_t definition without comment
#1308: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h:122:
+ spinlock_t lock;
Yes I had a comment but Kai thought it was too obvious and I can't think
of a better one that's not obvious so I removed:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/9ffb02a3344807f2c173fe8c7cb000cd6c7843b6.ca...@intel.com/
To be clear, my reply was really about the comment itself isn't useful,
but didn't say we shouldn't use a comment here.
CHECK: multiple assignments should be avoided
#444: FILE: kernel/cgroup/misc.c:450:
+ parent_cg = cg = &root_cg;
This was also suggested by Kai a few versions back:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/8f08f0b0f2b04b90d7cdb7b628f16f9080687c43.ca...@intel.com/
I didn't know checkpatch complains this. Feel free to revert back as it
is trivial to me.
