Re: ioctl API for vTPM driver

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:05:37PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Some follow-up question that have popped up while I've started to
> > write a test program for this feature mainly about ioctl API.  It's
> > better to be extremly cautious here because we will be stuck with this
> > ioctl forever.
> > 
> > 1. Why the ioctl name is VTPM_NEW_DEV but the struct name is
> >    vtpm_new_pair? It would be better if they both were either
> >    VTPM_NEW_DEV and vtpm_new_dev or alternatively VTPM_NEW_PAIR
> >    and vtpm_new_pair.
> > 2. Is 'pair' or 'tuple' a better term?
> > 3. Where is the documentation for the ioctl? I don't think I can
> >    merge this to my next branch before it exists.
> > 4. I have forgotten why the major and minor numbers were returned.
> >    My guess is that they were returned so that a container could
> >    replicate the device? This is one reason why documentation is
> >    mandatory.
> 
> 5. Is there any particular reason why 'tpm_dev_num' couldn't simply be
>    'dev_num'?

I think you should still send a patch set after documentation has been
completed and we have addressed these items to the following mailing
lists:

* linux-kernel
* linux-api
* linux-doc
* tpmdd

Now these patches have circled only in the tpmdd mailing list which
is not sufficient. I just realized this recently that the relevant
mailing lists were completely missing (while starting to write a
test program).

For patches up to TPM_CHIP_FLAG_VIRTUAL you could downloaded patches
from my repository before posting the patch set since they include
also my reviewed/tested-by's.

Thanks.

/Jarkko

------------------------------------------------------------------------------