Re: [PATCH v3 03/28] x86/sgx: Add 'struct sgx_epc_lru_lists' to encapsulate lru list(s)

[Haitao Huang]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:31:58 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...
> > > Although briefly mentioned in the first patch, it would be better to  
> > put
> > > more
> > > background about the "reclaimable" and "non-reclaimable" thing here,
> > > focusing on
> > > _why_ we need multiple LRUs (presumably you mean two lists:  
> > reclaimable
> > > and non-
> > > reclaimable).
> > >
> > Sure I can add a little more background to introduce the
> > reclaimable/unreclaimable concept. But why we need multiple LRUs would  
> > be
> > self-evident in later patches, not sure I will add details here.
>
> In this case people will need to go to that patch to get some idea  
> first.  It
> doesn't seem hurt if you can explain why you need multiple LRUs here  
> first.
Will add.

...
> I didn't get the CHECK in my testing.  Not sure why.
>
> Anyway, I guess the comment can be useful if it is to explain why we  
> need to use
> spinlock or whatever lock.  But
>
> 	/* Must acquire this lock to access */
>
> doesn't explain why at all, thus doesn't look helpful to me.
>
> I guess you either need a better comment, or just remove it (it's  
> obvious that a
> lot of kernel code doesn't have a comment around spinlock_t).

I'll remove the comments.
Thanks
Haitao