Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1523233
| From | Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted |
| Date | 2016-11-16 06:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sE0Xf-70B-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sDzaF-5oL-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDDHj-8vG-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDEk1-yW-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:11:54PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > How strong is your opposition here? I do not see any exceptional damage > done but see some subtle but still significant benefits. It seems OK, but I never like seeing locking made less clear - this should be manageable, and there isn't a performance concern with tpm either.. Jason
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-11-15 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-15 05:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-11-15 06:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-11-16 06:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-11-17 00:00 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-11-17 11:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-11-17 18:40 +0100
csiph-web