Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Martin Wilck" <Martin.Wilck@ts.fujitsu.com>,
	"Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:11:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151202081114.GA3458@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151201222223.GA27480@obsidianresearch.com>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:22:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock me
> > enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when
> > tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4?
> > 
> > I got a bit confused about the discussion that was going on about "where
> > to fix the probe" crash whether or not both it should be fixed in both
> > places.
> 
> I'm also confused by that..
> 
> It sounds like force=1 is broken in 4.4 right now - do we care? Should
> we fix this by using Martin's patch?
> 
> These changes are complex enough they really shouldn't go into 4.4
> unless absolutely necessary.

The reasons I'm asking this are:

* I'm planning to do v4.5 pull request soon.
* If this need to be get this into v4.4, we should act fast. Given the
  complexity of the changes I'd not recommend that unless it is a life
  and death question.

> > Could you possibly make these apply on top of security/next and
> > re-submit if needed?
> 
> It isn't trivial to reorder all 10 patches to do this, I'd like to
> know we need to do this for sure first. Uwe?

Agreed. First we have to know whether these changes have go to v4.4.

> Jason

/Jarkko