On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:54:09PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > Hi Lorenzo > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:44 AM Lorenzo Stoakes > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, this is a really unusual way to send a series - why is this a 2/2 > > > > in > > > > reply to the 1/2 and no cover letter? Why is this change totally > > > > unrelated > > > > to the other patch? > > > > > 1/2 has a fix that 2/2 is depending on. That is the reason they are together.
The normal way to send out these patches is as three emails; a 0/2 cover letter, 1/2 replying to 0/2 and 2/2 also replying to 0/2. That's what has Lorenzo confused. > > > > Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can > > > > ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave? > > > > > It is not an RFC because it doesn't change any semanic to mseal. The > updated test will pass on linux main as well as 6.10. The increased > coverage will help to prevent future regression, i.e. during > refactoring. You seem to not understand that there is disagreement on the semantics of mseal(). I mean, ther's been a lot of arguing about that over the last week. There's understanable reluctance to accept a large pile of tests saying "this just ensures that mseal behaves the way I think it should", when there is substantial disagreement that the way you think it should behave is in fact the way it should behave. Be prepared to argue for each semantic that you think it should have. > I will add a cover letter, split the tests and add more comments to > help the review. Thank you.
