On 26 October 2017 at 00:41, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally >> >> > uacceptable. >> >> >> >> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether >> >> it is acceptable or not. >> > >> > I like the idea of removing the tpm rng driver as discussed in other >> > emails in this thread. >> >> Thank you. > > No, thank you. > > I didn't first understand the big idea and only looked at the code > change per se. I apologize for that.
No need for that. I missed mentioning the reason for the patch and it is not obvious from code change. Its my fault. > The problem that you went to solve was real and it led to a properly > implemented solution. You were not late from the party. Jason's code > change is derivative work of your code change. That's why his code > change has also your signed-off-by. > > Thanks for doing awesome work :-) Its really nice to hear such words :-) :-D. > > /Jarkko Thanks and regards, PrasannaKumar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
