On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:11:16AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > Changing the return value to -EBUSY was a stupid mistake from my side. > > > > > > I'll try revise this a bit in a way that the API will allow positive > > > value for stating that the given locality has been already taking. > > > > Is there a big performance hit with requesting and releasing locality? > > If instead it just released it when release_locality is called I think > > the changes are pretty minor. > > If you can measure please let us know :) > > This is all very old it may not actually make any sense.. > > .. and as I said earlier if we want to 'cache' the locality for > performance then the core code should do it. > > I kinda thought the point of releasing the locality was to allow other > platform things to access the TPM, so I'm confused why TIS wouldn't > always release it as well.. > > Jason
I would propose to make tpm_tis_core to work like that. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
