[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160222191148.GG22088@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:11:48 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Wilck@...el.com, Martin <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:08:28PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:50:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > > I already pushed a fix to my master for this issue:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/jsakkine/linux-tpmdd/commit/6386544ad7bceb3d0248b85da29d4d99eebe9161
> >
> > The goal is to reduce the number of #ifdef'd code segments so we have
> > fewer problems in future with a large .config test matrix.
> >
> > I'd rather see a __maybe_unused annotation instead.
>
> Agreed that it's a better form but at this point it's probably revert
> the breaking change and move to that later on. Otherwise, I don't see
> reason not to include the patch that you authored to the release. I've
> used it in my test kernels for quite some time now and it has worked
> without issues.
>
> I sent my fix for review now.
A warning with some kconfigs is very minor, we can take the time to
fix it properly for 4.6.
I am surprised the 0day -next builds/etc didn't notice this - Jarkko is
your tree included in that process somehow? (sorry, I don't remember
the details)
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists