[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7BE9D077-675D-42FE-9461-81317CCA3762@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:15:14 -0800
From: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter
Am 1. Dezember 2015 14:22:23 PST, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>:
>On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
>> I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock
>me
>> enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when
>> tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4?
>>
>> I got a bit confused about the discussion that was going on about
>"where
>> to fix the probe" crash whether or not both it should be fixed in
>both
>> places.
>
>I'm also confused by that..
>
>It sounds like force=1 is broken in 4.4 right now - do we care? Should
>we fix this by using Martin's patch?
I'm not 100% sure if force=1 is broken in 4.3 as well, as I oops when I have my tpm_crb loaded and then call modprobe tpm_tis force=1
Peter
>
>These changes are complex enough they really shouldn't go into 4.4
>unless absolutely necessary.
>
>> Could you possibly make these apply on top of security/next and
>> re-submit if needed?
>
>It isn't trivial to reorder all 10 patches to do this, I'd like to
>know we need to do this for sure first. Uwe?
>
>Jason
--
Sent from my mobile
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists