From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:11:23 +0200 Subject: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API In-Reply-To: References: <20171023123817.18559-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20171023163139.GA17394@obsidianresearch.com> <20171024154440.3jeupmus43jcgbbz@linux.intel.com> <20171024162359.tf5xulhlhokmuxh5@linux.intel.com> <20171024182235.d7b3oajc5zcjs57v@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: <20171025191123.4uqh6epwhak6hqp5@linux.intel.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org 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. 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 :-) /Jarkko -- 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