[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161116052832.GB6044@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:28:32 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:11:54PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> How strong is your opposition here? I do not see any exceptional damage
> done but see some subtle but still significant benefits.
It seems OK, but I never like seeing locking made less clear - this
should be manageable, and there isn't a performance concern with tpm
either..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists