[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7218.1221189008@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:10:08 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Marcin Obara <marcin_obara@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, tpm@...horst.net,
kjhall@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, debora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: tpm-correct-tpm-timeouts-to-jiffies-conversion.patch -> 2.6.27
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:03:52 +0200, Marcin Obara said:
> > Why? I wasn't aware that this fixed anything which anyone had observed
> > (pokes tongue out at the changelog).
> >
>
> This fixes i.e.: long hang while loading TPM driver, if TPM chip
> starts in "Idle" state instead of "Ready" state.
> Without this patch - 'modprobe' may hang for 30 seconds or more.
> Please, push this patch into 2.6.27.
I personally don't care whether this goes into .27 or waits till .28. However,
I *would* appreciate it if we make sure that whenever it goes go upstream, we
also send tpm-work-around-bug-in-broadcom-bcm0102-chipset.patch at the same
time.
I have to admit that it's not exactly confidence inspiring - if the Broadcom
chip gets timeout units wrong, what *other* issues lurk in its silicon? It's
bad enough when you find bugs in a RAID chipset or mouse hardware - it's even
worse when it's a security chip.. ;)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists