Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
	Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	"open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA"
	<linux-ima-user@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE (IMA)"
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
	<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
	<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.co>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:53:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANc+2y4d-uYninXST5h+hzxmmwXP+VPo662rQB4YG2MB=8JvZA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025191123.4uqh6epwhak6hqp5@linux.intel.com>

On 26 October 2017 at 00:41, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>> >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally
>> >> >    uacceptable.
>> >>
>> >> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether
>> >> it is acceptable or not.
>> >
>> > I like the idea of removing the tpm rng driver as discussed in other
>> > emails in this thread.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> No, thank you.
>
> I didn't first understand the big idea and only looked at the code
> change per se. I apologize for that.

No need for that. I missed mentioning the reason for the patch and it
is not obvious from code change. Its my fault.

> The problem that you went to solve was real and it led to a properly
> implemented solution. You were not late from the party. Jason's code
> change is derivative work of your code change. That's why his code
> change has also your signed-off-by.
>
> Thanks for doing awesome work :-)

Its really nice to hear such words :-) :-D.

>
> /Jarkko

Thanks and regards,
PrasannaKumar