From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86636C282C4 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEFA21B18 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="fzsOeNar" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728757AbfBLKXi (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:23:38 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:43041 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726003AbfBLKXg (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:23:36 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id q17so1076102pfh.10; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 02:23:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vTTJdqf/ZWLOUT+uK18iY5fQAanEzmeGSK8RyC8mzgo=; b=fzsOeNarDEfKHlAntINZHVZGIhmhjydkfu2/SuhWPNq6Jv/cjgPERGaSPnnjiLNBmp 3p+jjD/8ZhnkHPSlrqlE4c+LKREjP985LoD3qsy05XoeHD1oo0PWbW80rJB9iAoh0C/+ oQbTnu0lEw/zZvnrULDHXSu7f4vcNFfKjUpkCDyLNQ0YCxCq9tn9Wmf+DUbKBGwVtbkA pRzZyEyfmabYXcefe750yMup2FhKXIlxFn5bCRUuFiBza5BuNqmeak9AXlfgRUgVhHrM FCj7AJ5mJxTm99yj42GmrymH1PhTBi/HVHbFVNA3AuBAqDfbNzO9shxxbFts7LvQRwm+ I4aQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vTTJdqf/ZWLOUT+uK18iY5fQAanEzmeGSK8RyC8mzgo=; b=bEqfWy/cbFXEg2PRZGSyQdcy5lhgoiWoa0bjetL7pX6Ti2dXMHBV8LS5+3CVKL+xjS Yons0cE1sVn7aj6rNMV5MCw7/Bjp8MfybTqkoBr9F/Q1M1q6mHVn69Tt6UfcNyPsiDXr OdUzxUEQ4Bze6rxXatj0LgadiKBO42YhOcGE94ojZHwFqjX86WyUOWPyixeWoFDlSHQW viMZAYetor4tu/WkvacNzbCBz3rGRle1u7iZIbPmvDBypTQ8CD79rdg/rRpSdZoDbpqR 9kbg4L5bBP9M8vohd2/fralNe8q4n7UpfNvvzXEjmEc0spG4/3y4xcxfj52dnYUMWYkE t1Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZpWXpPXxRfVa5BZAsk5nM3TKlc+o5sT/sfXobIfte2n5gKLpP2 yg0xTpZQ7Eo5QCCcSHpAH/Hzy9KAUVIVAdmJ0hY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY2kmVlUdKv8f9Sk+glks2rXPkq7jQagqImqXSs1fMz/TOg7fuP1h2Iql1nmVyW9H/AsHpoBxNwNsrqnbixArc= X-Received: by 2002:a63:4a21:: with SMTP id x33mr3033356pga.428.1549967015050; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 02:23:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190212100825.9113-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:23:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ima: fix build error redeclaration of enumerator To: Anders Roxell Cc: Mimi Zohar , Dmitry Kasatkin , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Ard Biesheuvel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , linux-integrity , linux-security-module , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , linux-efi , Platform Driver Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:21 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:15 PM Anders Roxell wrote: > > > > Commit a893ea15d764 ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to > > include/linux/tpm.h") introduced a build error when both ima and efi is > > enabled. What happens is that both headers (ima.h and efi.h) defines the > > same 'NONE' constant, and it broke when they started getting included > > from the same file. > > > We only need one of the two patches applied. > > I would argue that we need two patches applied. Namespace is a hidden > issue in the code. > > This patch looks good to me, FWIW, > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko Oh, did you change ABI? So, I have to say that enum changes are okay, but ABI, if any, are not. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko