On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:43:24PM +0200, Ingo Tuchscherer wrote:
> At this point in time the zcrypt hw device is not registered completely in
> the internal zcrypt device list (ap_device_list). The crypto card itself is
> initialized and ready to receive and service requests, but the tasklet that
we ,
Cc: Ingo Tuchscherer/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Hans-Georg
Markgraf/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, gera...@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mschw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, heica...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Jörn
Engel
Date: 16.06.2014 16:28
Subject: Re: [Patch v5.1 03/03]: hwrng: khwrngd de
v5.1 03/03]: hwrng: khwrngd derating per device
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:14:44PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
Also, I added the patch below to our kernel. Who wants to take that
one-liner upstream?
This will require sucking in the master branch of random.git. So
either the s390 tree can merge
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:43:24PM +0200, Ingo Tuchscherer wrote:
At this point in time the zcrypt hw device is not registered completely in
the internal zcrypt device list (ap_device_list). The crypto card itself is
initialized and ready to receive and service requests, but the tasklet that
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:07:19PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > TPM RNG is a crook ;-)
> >
> > I think the word you mean is "crock" (as in "crock of sh*t"?) :-)
>
> Actually, I was thinking of a crutch. Makes you walk slowly, but better
> than nothing. Seems I've bent the wrong tube.
Heh.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 07:22:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > 2) Fixed a bug in patch #2 so that it would work correctly if the rng
> > > driver doesn't have an init function (which happens to be the case for
> > > the tpm-rng
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > 2) Fixed a bug in patch #2 so that it would work correctly if the rng
> > driver doesn't have an init function (which happens to be the case for
> > the tpm-rng driver, which I used for my testing).
>
> The whole thing stems from
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:11:46AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> OK, I've merged these changes into the random.git tree.
>
> I had to make a few minor changes.
>
> 1) Changes so it would compile on 3.15. (random_write_wakeup_thresh
> got renamed to random_write_wakeup_bits). I'm guessing the
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:11:46AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
OK, I've merged these changes into the random.git tree.
I had to make a few minor changes.
1) Changes so it would compile on 3.15. (random_write_wakeup_thresh
got renamed to random_write_wakeup_bits). I'm guessing the patch
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
2) Fixed a bug in patch #2 so that it would work correctly if the rng
driver doesn't have an init function (which happens to be the case for
the tpm-rng driver, which I used for my testing).
The whole thing stems from
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 07:22:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
2) Fixed a bug in patch #2 so that it would work correctly if the rng
driver doesn't have an init function (which happens to be the case for
the tpm-rng driver,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:07:19PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
TPM RNG is a crook ;-)
I think the word you mean is crock (as in crock of sh*t?) :-)
Actually, I was thinking of a crutch. Makes you walk slowly, but better
than nothing. Seems I've bent the wrong tube.
Heh. One of the
OK, I've merged these changes into the random.git tree.
I had to make a few minor changes.
1) Changes so it would compile on 3.15. (random_write_wakeup_thresh
got renamed to random_write_wakeup_bits). I'm guessing the patch was
massaged so that it would apply, but it was never compile tested.
OK, I've merged these changes into the random.git tree.
I had to make a few minor changes.
1) Changes so it would compile on 3.15. (random_write_wakeup_thresh
got renamed to random_write_wakeup_bits). I'm guessing the patch was
massaged so that it would apply, but it was never compile tested.
Makes sense to me.
Feel free to add my
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin
On June 13, 2014 7:40:50 PM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:09:54PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>> >
>> > Did we lose track of this patchset?
>>
>> Yes. I was already considering a resend.
>
>I've looked it
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:09:54PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> >
> > Did we lose track of this patchset?
>
> Yes. I was already considering a resend.
I've looked it over, and I'm fairly OK with it at this point. Do
folks mind if I just run it through the random tree?
I want to add a
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:09:54PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
Did we lose track of this patchset?
Yes. I was already considering a resend.
I've looked it over, and I'm fairly OK with it at this point. Do
folks mind if I just run it through the random tree?
I want to add a tracepoint for
Makes sense to me.
Feel free to add my
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com
On June 13, 2014 7:40:50 PM PDT, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:09:54PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
Did we lose track of this patchset?
Yes. I was already considering a resend.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:24:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/27/2014 07:11 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > [checkpatch tells me not to 0-init...]
> >
> > This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
> > the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
> >
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:24:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/27/2014 07:11 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
[checkpatch tells me not to 0-init...]
This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
default derating
On 05/27/2014 07:11 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> [checkpatch tells me not to 0-init...]
>
> This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
> the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
> default derating for drivers which do not specify one.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On 05/27/2014 07:11 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
[checkpatch tells me not to 0-init...]
This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
default derating for drivers which do not specify one.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe
[checkpatch tells me not to 0-init...]
This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
default derating for drivers which do not specify one.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe
---
drivers/char/hw_random/core.c | 11
[checkpatch tells me not to 0-init...]
This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
default derating for drivers which do not specify one.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe d...@suse.de
---
drivers/char/hw_random/core.c |
24 matches
Mail list logo
