From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941425AbcKPWyB (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:54:01 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:40836 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753975AbcKPWyA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:54:00 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,650,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1069507741" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:54:12 -0800 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , Christophe Ricard , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Message-ID: <20161116225412.gzvw7f5snnovk7na@intel.com> References: <20161114234500.24839-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20161115043001.GA22482@obsidianresearch.com> <20161115051106.u2xoduwf2kpcznv3@intel.com> <20161116052832.GB6044@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161116052832.GB6044@obsidianresearch.com> 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 Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:28:32PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:11:54PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > How strong is your opposition here? I do not see any exceptional damage > > done but see some subtle but still significant benefits. > > It seems OK, but I never like seeing locking made less clear - this > should be manageable, and there isn't a performance concern with tpm > either.. OK good to hear. I'm using this as part of my RM patch set. Just wanted to get some feedback for this patch. Not for the next rel. /Jarkko