Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > Why f1774cb8956a lacked any possible testing? It extends ABI anyway. > > I think it is a kind of change that would require more screening before > getting applied.
Yeah. It went in via a round-about route. I left off development of it when the tpm stuff I wrote broke because the tpm2 stuff went in upstream. I then handed the patches off to Denis who did the tpm support, but I never got my stuff finished enough to work out how to do the testsuite (since it would involve using a tpm). However, since I did the PKCS#8 testing module as well, I guess I don't need that to at least test the API. I'll look at using that to add some tests. Any suggestions as to how to do testing via the tpm? David
