Dera Jarkko,
Am 21.02.2018 um 08:25 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:09:51PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 23:28 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:27:25PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:26:00PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:51:51PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 19:43 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
I get merge conflicts in my tree but I'll review this.
You told me to rebase it on that patch that wasn't in your
tree:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10208965/
If you put it in your tree, I can just rebase on top of
everything.
James
Aah. Sorry, my bad I'll move forward on testing :-)
/Jarkko
Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
/Jarkko
These must be taken away:
[ 2.843641] tpm tpm0: TPM: running incremental selftest
[ 2.854087] tpm tpm0: TPM: selftest succeeded
I'm not wedded to having the messages, but it helps give context when
something like this happens:
[ 1.550099] tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0xFE, rev-id 2)
[ 1.550108] tpm tpm0: TPM: running incremental selftest
[ 1.602294] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (323) occurred incremental selftest
[ 1.602320] tpm tpm0: TPM: incremental selftest failed
[ 1.602322] tpm tpm0: TPM: running full selftest
[ 2.523689] tpm tpm0: TPM: selftest succeeded
It also helps explain why I lost a second in the boot sequence to the
TPM having to run a full self test.
Without the chatty messages, what you see is
[ 1.550099] tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0xFE, rev-id 2)
[
1.602294] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (323) occurred incremental selftest
Which is a bit harder to interpret.
Way too much bloat to klog. Telling whether the full or incremental test
failed makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.
As a user, I agree with James here. Having more elaborate information
would have helped me in the past. Two more lines won’t hurt in my
opinion either.
[…]
Kind regards,
Paul
