Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1430864 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-06-24 20:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-06-24 22:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-06-24 22:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-06-25 17:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-06-25 17:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-06-27 20:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-06-24 22:30 +0200

#1430864 — Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors

>  	expected = be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *) (buf + 2));
>  	if (expected > count) {
> +		dev_err(chip->pdev, "Response too long (wanted %zd, got %d)\n",
> +			count, expected);

This all needs to be rebased on Jarkko's tree I guess, chip->pdev is
gone now.

http://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/linux-tpmdd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/master

Jarkko, did you miss a pull request for 4.7 or something? This is
4 month old stuff???

Jason

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1430924

Hi Jason,

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:25:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >  	expected = be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *) (buf + 2));
> >  	if (expected > count) {
> > +		dev_err(chip->pdev, "Response too long (wanted %zd, got %d)\n",
> > +			count, expected);
> 
> This all needs to be rebased on Jarkko's tree I guess, chip->pdev is
> gone now.
> 
> http://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/linux-tpmdd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/master
> 
> Jarkko, did you miss a pull request for 4.7 or something? This is
> 4 month old stuff???

Hmm... Do you mean by 4 month old stuff the stuff that is in mainline
and not in my master branch?

I'm not sure what happened with 4.7. I merged the changes for in about
4.6-rc5. There was one issue that I fixed that Stephen reported.

At the moment linux-next seems contain the stuff that I have in my
next.

> Jason

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1430926

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Hmm... Do you mean by 4 month old stuff the stuff that is in mainline
> and not in my master branch?

I mean the stuff that is in your branch but not in mainline.

$ git log --pretty=oneline jarkko/master ^v4.7-rc3 | wc -l
73

> I'm not sure what happened with 4.7. I merged the changes for in about
> 4.6-rc5. There was one issue that I fixed that Stephen reported.
> 
> At the moment linux-next seems contain the stuff that I have in my
> next.

linux-next is just pulling directly from your tree, you still have to
ensure that James gets and processes your pull request during the
merge window. If he dropped a pull request you should follow up and
ask why, if you never sent one then ... oops :)

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1431146

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:26:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Hmm... Do you mean by 4 month old stuff the stuff that is in mainline
> > and not in my master branch?
> 
> I mean the stuff that is in your branch but not in mainline.
> 
> $ git log --pretty=oneline jarkko/master ^v4.7-rc3 | wc -l
> 73
> 
> > I'm not sure what happened with 4.7. I merged the changes for in about
> > 4.6-rc5. There was one issue that I fixed that Stephen reported.
> > 
> > At the moment linux-next seems contain the stuff that I have in my
> > next.
> 
> linux-next is just pulling directly from your tree, you still have to
> ensure that James gets and processes your pull request during the
> merge window. If he dropped a pull request you should follow up and
> ask why, if you never sent one then ... oops :)

For 4.6 I used pull request with a signed tag and everything went quite
well.

For 4.7 I did re-read the whole development process documentation but it
only speaks about pull requests and does not clearly state what you just
stated.

To summarize I screwed this one up but I guess the only big harm is that
vTPM support will skip to 4.8. I guess not big harm done?

My master is now rebased and this is what I get:

$ git log --oneline security/next...master | wc -l
67

I don't think that is too bad.

> Jason

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1431147

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 06:24:30PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:26:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Hmm... Do you mean by 4 month old stuff the stuff that is in mainline
> > > and not in my master branch?
> > 
> > I mean the stuff that is in your branch but not in mainline.
> > 
> > $ git log --pretty=oneline jarkko/master ^v4.7-rc3 | wc -l
> > 73
> > 
> > > I'm not sure what happened with 4.7. I merged the changes for in about
> > > 4.6-rc5. There was one issue that I fixed that Stephen reported.
> > > 
> > > At the moment linux-next seems contain the stuff that I have in my
> > > next.
> > 
> > linux-next is just pulling directly from your tree, you still have to
> > ensure that James gets and processes your pull request during the
> > merge window. If he dropped a pull request you should follow up and
> > ask why, if you never sent one then ... oops :)
> 
> For 4.6 I used pull request with a signed tag and everything went quite
> well.
> 
> For 4.7 I did re-read the whole development process documentation but it
> only speaks about pull requests and does not clearly state what you just
> stated.
> 
> To summarize I screwed this one up but I guess the only big harm is that
> vTPM support will skip to 4.8. I guess not big harm done?
> 
> My master is now rebased and this is what I get:
> 
> $ git log --oneline security/next...master | wc -l
> 67
> 
> I don't think that is too bad.

My repositories are ready for next pull request. The master has been
rebased to James' tree and merged to next.

I won't add any new commits expect critical bug fixes for 4.8 release
content.

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1432208

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 06:47:45PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

> My repositories are ready for next pull request. The master has been
> rebased to James' tree and merged to next.

This seems fine..

Generally you shouldn't rebase to create pull requests, but this
seemed needed..

Organize your git tree so that it is always pullable and just use
merges/resets/etc in the -next branch

There is no reason to hold off on more stuff for 4.8, if another batch
is ready before the merge window then send it, James already took the
stuff you sent.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1430931

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:25:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > >  	expected = be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *) (buf + 2));
> > >  	if (expected > count) {
> > > +		dev_err(chip->pdev, "Response too long (wanted %zd, got %d)\n",
> > > +			count, expected);
> > 
> > This all needs to be rebased on Jarkko's tree I guess, chip->pdev is
> > gone now.
> > 
> > http://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/linux-tpmdd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/master
> > 
> > Jarkko, did you miss a pull request for 4.7 or something? This is
> > 4 month old stuff???
> 
> Hmm... Do you mean by 4 month old stuff the stuff that is in mainline
> and not in my master branch?
> 
> I'm not sure what happened with 4.7. I merged the changes for in about
> 4.6-rc5. There was one issue that I fixed that Stephen reported.
> 
> At the moment linux-next seems contain the stuff that I have in my
> next.

Ed:

I was planning to applying these patches to my master next week and run
tests on them. If they do not apply it would be good if you could rebase
your series to apply to my master.

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web