From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:37:41 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance In-Reply-To: <20171126152218.c5fsr7uhs3ipwwha@linux.intel.com> References: <20171017203232.2262-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171017203232.2262-3-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5ef60315f2254b3b8bcc217a572280e5@infineon.com> <3ff12c6536de4379aa61cb09ebc9d105@infineon.com> <20171123144742.GC8862@swastik> <20171126152218.c5fsr7uhs3ipwwha@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: <1511714261.4361.13.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org [Cc'ing Dave and Leendeert] Hi Jarkko, > > It seems that the last byte was sent from the beginning (27084ef > > [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips,), does anyone > > remember the reason ? > > Sent from the beginning? I went through the commit logs to see if any of the patch descriptions have an explanation for sending the last byte separately. Based on commit 27084efee0c3 "[PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips", it seems it's been there since the beginning. Dave, Leendert, Do either of you remember the reason for tpm_tis_send_data() sending the last byte separately? thanks, Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html