Hi Jason,

On 6 November 2017 at 07:57, Jason Gunthorpe [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

I asked to create a series for a reason. Now this doesn't apply because I
don't have an ancestor in my git history.

It would be unusual for me to put your patch into a series unless I am
also adopting it. eg what happens if there are more comments on it?

Also, I wasn't sure what branch your patch was against since my tree
didn't have history for it either..

Sometimes the maintainer has to sort stuff like this out... :)

quoted

Please resend as series together with my patch. I can apply neither yet
because they have zero tested-by's.

Hopefully PrasannaKumar can test both patches.

I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch.

I won't be able to test if struct tpm_chip usage as I don't have
multiple tpm hw in one machine. In case of tpm rng changes I can test
only the lifecycle of tpm rng device. Is that enough? I feel my test
will be limited. Please provide your thoughts on this.

Regards,
PrasannaKumar
--
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