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=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 6E876C3A5A2 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EAF208C3 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="c9fcWv65"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="YMyChGGA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404632AbfITPxb (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 11:53:31 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:37706 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404583AbfITPxb (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 11:53:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E368EE19C; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:53:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1568994811; bh=pLZxfGnwgV0W/U6tVbXsrcOVpVeJXJ9PgmIXKjKhaM8=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=c9fcWv65wre+1MQv9uN6OJoZ6S0aOhkxGirxDTPiEn176gszxlr6Crn/jEg2IsgXu pC+cyPwLIOZF4iTtMV1+gK8hbKo58QvkHMzbXi6lahMZkpra3QJYZw2ZxRjI9K9kr4 TgHgLxL36O7QkpMcIMerf4GO1umAGocE2Wuvb17c= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03Zw01ncXwbb; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jarvis.lan (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71CE28EE109; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:53:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1568994810; bh=pLZxfGnwgV0W/U6tVbXsrcOVpVeJXJ9PgmIXKjKhaM8=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YMyChGGA6Y6XBcqBUTwwugNdf1tWlhLBz1IpNw8w2wgyfVjlb3YcQDISwHhQXDPiN Ohw1uZ4qSsCGP9Zhbg0Orl0GDBpyb+ZqgY6R4OsAUgUf6BSi4KkwsO/otzsvQON3cT h309a/0Dw652hHHGqIFNGeXoB+mdSieh6ivHV8Ks= Message-ID: <1568994809.3645.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/12] tpm-buf: move from static inlines to real functions From: James Bottomley To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:53:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190920140642.GB9578@linux.intel.com> References: <1568031408.6613.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1568031476.6613.30.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20190920140459.GA9578@linux.intel.com> <20190920140642.GB9578@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 17:06 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:06:15PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 01:17:56PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > > This separates out the old tpm_buf_... handling functions from > > > static > > > inlines in tpm.h and makes them their own tpm-buf.c file. This > > > is a > > > precursor so we can add new functions for other TPM type handling > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > .com> > > > > What about TPM_BUF_2B that gets added in this commit? > > Probably just a glitch in rebasing/squashing? Well a glitch in splitting one patch into three, yes. I'll fix it up. James