[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170317171116.GA29996@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:11:16 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@....fi>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, gang.wei@...el.com,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > Changing the return value to -EBUSY was a stupid mistake from my side.
> >
> > I'll try revise this a bit in a way that the API will allow positive
> > value for stating that the given locality has been already taking.
>
> Is there a big performance hit with requesting and releasing locality?
> If instead it just released it when release_locality is called I think
> the changes are pretty minor.
If you can measure please let us know :)
This is all very old it may not actually make any sense..
.. and as I said earlier if we want to 'cache' the locality for
performance then the core code should do it.
I kinda thought the point of releasing the locality was to allow other
platform things to access the TPM, so I'm confused why TIS wouldn't
always release it as well..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists