[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <95b2970f-b71b-4cfc-c188-7ae7e8cb94c5@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:45:03 -0400
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
jgg@...pe.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] tpm: Implement tpm_chip_find() and tpm_chip_put()
for other subsystems
On 06/21/2018 01:15 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:42:33PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> Implement tpm_chip_find() for other subsystems to find a TPM chip and
>> get a reference to that chip. Once done with using the chip, the reference
>> is released using tpm_chip_put().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> You should sort this out in a way that we don't end up with duplicate
> functions.
Do you want me to create a function *like* tpm_chip_find_get() that
takes an additional parameter whether to get the ops semaphore and have
that function called by the existing tpm_chip_find_get() and the new
tpm_chip_find(). The latter would then not get the ops semphore. I
didn't want to do this since one time the function returns with a lock
held and the other time not.
Stefan
>
> /Jarkko
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists