On Fri, 2025-08-08 at 10:47 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > index 308dbbae6c6e..cf149b9f4916 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > @@ -765,6 +765,7 @@ void sgx_encl_release(struct kref *ref) > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(encl->secs.epc_page); > > > > > > kfree(encl); > > > + sgx_dec_usage_count(); > > > } > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/virt.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/virt.c > > > @@ -255,10 +255,11 @@ static int sgx_vepc_release(struct inode *inode, > > struct file *file) > > > xa_destroy(&vepc->page_array); > > > kfree(vepc); > > > > > > + sgx_dec_usage_count(); > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > Given we have __sgx_(vepc_)open(), I think it makes more sense to have > > __sgx_(encl_|vepc_)release() counterpart? > > Is it worth it? In case of *_open() variants there are quite error handling > under different cases, but for release as you can see it is just a one-line > addition. Not sure it is worth adding the wrappers just for that. > But I can change it if people think it would look better this way.
Either way is fine to me. Feel free to ignore.
