On 12/18/2015 6:41 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > For me this discussion seems a bit paralyzed. If one wants to do > something for the issue, one should send a patch or patches and then we > can see how elegant the solution is and how much it does or does not > interfere the user space. That's why enumerated the technical > constraints for TPM2 in my previous responses and otherwise have been > quite passive. I'm not too interested on this "philosophical" side.
As a developer, the philosophical side is #1 in importance. A resource manager isn't a little patch. It's a large, complex project which will take perhaps 6 months to code and test. No one wants to spend those months and then have the code rejected for philosophical reasons. If the community agrees that a RM in the kernel will be accepted if the code is of good quality and well tested, we can do it. If the community won't accept the code under any conditions, tell us now. We'll fall back on the user space resource manager, the limited resource manager in the kernel, and all the hacks required to have them work together. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
