Re: [PATCH v11 10/13] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard Extensions

[Dave Hansen]

> +#define sgx_pr_ratelimited(level, encl, fmt, ...)			\
> +	pr_ ## level ## _ratelimited("[%d:0x%p] " fmt,			\
> +				     pid_nr((encl)->tgid),		\
> +				     (void *)(encl)->base, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +
> +#define sgx_dbg(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(debug, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_info(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(info, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_warn(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(warn, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_err(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(err, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_crit(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(crit, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)

I thought the pr_* thingies were to keep everyone from having to do this
in each driver.  Why did you need this?

Can you do any better than a 2,000-line patch?  For instance, could you
break out the memory management portion into its own part and have that
reviewed by mm folks?  Or the ioctl()'s by device driver folks?