On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:49:22PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
> > > > is coded to return EBUSY if another process has it open, rather than
> > > > block, and spinning on open would be unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Hmm, maybe
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:39:45 -0600
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:35:09AM +, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote:
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
> >
> > > Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
> > > is
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:35:09AM +, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
>
> > Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
> > is coded to return EBUSY if another process has it open, rather than
> >
-Original Message-
> From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
> Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
> is coded to return EBUSY if another process has it open, rather than
> block, and spinning on open would be unacceptable.
Hmm,
-Original Message-
From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
is coded to return EBUSY if another process has it open, rather than
block, and spinning on open would be unacceptable.
Hmm, maybe
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:35:09AM +, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote:
From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
is coded to return EBUSY if another process has it open, rather than
block, and
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:39:45 -0600
Jason Gunthorpe jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:35:09AM +, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote:
From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:49:22PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Using open/close is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. open()
is coded to return EBUSY if another process has it open, rather than
block, and spinning on open would be unacceptable.
Hmm, maybe write a small pass
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 09:07:11AM +, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> one quick question:
> - TPM_BUFSIZE = 4096,
> [...]
> + u8 data_bufferx[2048];
>
> Why do you half the buffer size?
I missed 7f366784f5c2b8fc065 when I rebased the patch, thanks!
Jason
--
To
Hi Jason,
one quick question:
- TPM_BUFSIZE = 4096,
[...]
+ u8 data_bufferx[2048];
Why do you half the buffer size?
Thanks,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Hi Jason,
one quick question:
- TPM_BUFSIZE = 4096,
[...]
+ u8 data_bufferx[2048];
Why do you half the buffer size?
Thanks,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 09:07:11AM +, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
one quick question:
- TPM_BUFSIZE = 4096,
[...]
+ u8 data_bufferx[2048];
Why do you half the buffer size?
I missed 7f366784f5c2b8fc065 when I rebased the patch, thanks!
Jason
--
To unsubscribe
12 matches
Mail list logo
