On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:52:13PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:20:18PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> > > Hi Jarkko,
> > >
> > > On 17 November 2017 at 19:27, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > >
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:20:18PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> > Hi Jarkko,
> >
> > On 17 November 2017 at 19:27, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:28:53PM +0200, Jarkko
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:20:18PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> On 17 November 2017 at 19:27, Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:28:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > At least signed-off-by from
Hi Jarkko,
On 17 November 2017 at 19:27, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:28:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> At least signed-off-by from PrassanaKumar is missing from the 2nd
> commit. I'll add it.
I had the impression that my
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:28:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 04:34:21PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 04:34:21PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> >
> > > I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
> > >
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>
> > I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
> > struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch.
>
> yes
>
> > I won't
Hi Jason,
On 9 November 2017 at 21:59, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:49:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530,
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:49:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> >
> >> I am assuming you are talking about the
Hi Jason,
On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>
>> I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
>> struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch.
>
> yes
>
>>
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 07:27:04PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > I asked to create a series for a reason. Now this doesn't apply because I
> > don't have an ancestor in my git history.
>
> It would be unusual for me to put
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
> struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch.
yes
> I won't be able to test if struct tpm_chip usage as I don't have
> multiple tpm hw in
Hi Jason,
On 6 November 2017 at 07:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
>> I asked to create a series for a reason. Now this doesn't apply because I
>> don't have an ancestor in my git history.
>
> It would be unusual for
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> I asked to create a series for a reason. Now this doesn't apply because I
> don't have an ancestor in my git history.
It would be unusual for me to put your patch into a series unless I am
also adopting it. eg what happens if
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:05:03PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The tpm-rng.c approach is completely inconsistent with how the kernel
> handles hotplug. Instead manage a hwrng device for each TPM. This will
> cause the kernel to read entropy from the TPM when it is plugged in,
> and allow
The tpm-rng.c approach is completely inconsistent with how the kernel
handles hotplug. Instead manage a hwrng device for each TPM. This will
cause the kernel to read entropy from the TPM when it is plugged in,
and allow access to the TPM rng via /dev/hwrng.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar
16 matches
Mail list logo