[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629180953.GG379@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:53 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@...el.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: require to compile as part of the kernel
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:47:43PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM) || defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM_MODULE)
> > > -
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM)
> >
> > Huh. This new version is certainly right
>
> Hmm...
>
> If the option is kept as tristate, shouldn't this be actually:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM) && !defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM_MODULE)
>
> ?
Er, yes, it should be writte as
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TCG_TPM)
these days
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists