On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:16:06PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi
> > Am 11. Oktober 2016 19:13:13 MESZ, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe
> > :
> > >On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:01:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >> From: P
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
>
>
> Hi
> Am 11. Oktober 2016 19:13:13 MESZ, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe
> :
> >On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:01:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> From: Peter Huewe
> >>
> >> In some weird cases it might be possible that the TPM does
Hi
Am 11. Oktober 2016 19:13:13 MESZ, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe
:
>On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:01:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> From: Peter Huewe
>>
>> In some weird cases it might be possible that the TPM does not set
>> STS.VALID within the given timeout time (or ever) but sets STS.EXPE
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:01:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> From: Peter Huewe
>
> In some weird cases it might be possible that the TPM does not set
> STS.VALID within the given timeout time (or ever) but sets STS.EXPECT
> (STS=0x0C) In this case the driver gets stuck in the while loop of
From: Peter Huewe
In some weird cases it might be possible that the TPM does not set
STS.VALID within the given timeout time (or ever) but sets STS.EXPECT
(STS=0x0C) In this case the driver gets stuck in the while loop of
tpm_tis_send_data and loops endlessly.
Checking the return value of wait_f
5 matches
Mail list logo