[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1511714261.4361.13.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:37:41 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
tpmdd@...horst.net, patrickc@...ibm.com,
"Safford, David (GE Global Research, US)" <david.safford@...com>,
leendert@...amecium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send()
performance
[Cc'ing Dave and Leendeert]
Hi Jarkko,
> > It seems that the last byte was sent from the beginning (27084ef
> > [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips,), does anyone
> > remember the reason ?
>
> Sent from the beginning?
I went through the commit logs to see if any of the patch descriptions
have an explanation for sending the last byte separately. Based on
commit 27084efee0c3 "[PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM
chips", it seems it's been there since the beginning.
Dave, Leendert, Do either of you remember the reason for
tpm_tis_send_data() sending the last byte separately?
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists