From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752504AbdCOR6T (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:58:19 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:58944 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751236AbdCOR6S (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:58:18 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,169,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="1142699430" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:58:09 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , Jason Gunthorpe , Stefan Berger , Christophe Ricard , Nayna Jain , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: select CONFIG_CRYPTO Message-ID: <20170315175809.3ebyzy3r54s6g4nm@intel.com> References: <20170314214043.3895041-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20170315083024.loltipc7h3uxwfaa@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:39:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen > wrote: > > Arnd, > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:40:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> As we need the CRYPTO_HASH_INFO implementation, we should also > >> select CRYPTO itself to avoid this build warning: > >> > >> warning: (TCG_TPM && TRUSTED_KEYS && IMA) selects CRYPTO_HASH_INFO which has unmet direct dependencies (CRYPTO) > >> > >> Fixes: c1f92b4b04ad ("tpm: enhance TPM 2.0 PCR extend to support multiple banks") > >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > > > > I've already merged this and put to my next branch. > > Ah, I see my mistake: I had made an identical patch earlier, which you merged > into linux-next, and I dropped it from my series after rebasing on > -next, but then > rebased again on mainline and did the new patch without checking whether > it was already fixed in -next. > > I guess the warning is rare enough that we don't really need this in v4.11 > even though it does apply there. > > Arnd Ah. Right, now that I remember that was my conclusion. I'm sorry that I did not remember to respond :-) If you think this would make sense for 4.11 I could send it to stable. /Jarkko