From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755847AbcBVVX1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:23:27 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:10532 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755550AbcBVVXY (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:23:24 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,486,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="908880596" Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:23:20 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: James Morris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Wilck@intel.com, Martin Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5 Message-ID: <20160222212320.GA6733@intel.com> References: <20160220081705.GA12981@intel.com> <20160222145023.GA28365@intel.com> <20160222175245.GA22828@obsidianresearch.com> <20160222190828.GA32231@intel.com> <20160222191148.GG22088@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160222191148.GG22088@obsidianresearch.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:11:48PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:08:28PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:50:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > I already pushed a fix to my master for this issue: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/jsakkine/linux-tpmdd/commit/6386544ad7bceb3d0248b85da29d4d99eebe9161 > > > > > > The goal is to reduce the number of #ifdef'd code segments so we have > > > fewer problems in future with a large .config test matrix. > > > > > > I'd rather see a __maybe_unused annotation instead. > > > > Agreed that it's a better form but at this point it's probably revert > > the breaking change and move to that later on. Otherwise, I don't see > > reason not to include the patch that you authored to the release. I've > > used it in my test kernels for quite some time now and it has worked > > without issues. > > > > I sent my fix for review now. > > A warning with some kconfigs is very minor, we can take the time to > fix it properly for 4.6. I don't see any problem adding those too ifdefs back for 4.5 release. > I am surprised the 0day -next builds/etc didn't notice this - Jarkko is > your tree included in that process somehow? (sorry, I don't remember > the details) It has been and I've received notifications from there from time to time about my master branch and fixed issues accordingly. > Jason /Jarkko