On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:28, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:06, Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:29:26AM +0100, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:27:08AM +0100, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:43:36PM +0100, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 11:57:45AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > > @Jarkko: No worries, I understand the situation. > > > > > > > > > > I made the call to add them anyway to my TPM tree. > > > > > > > > Also, > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I think I give a shot of doing one more PR to 5.4 because that would > > > > help both your and James' work because this is the kind of intersection > > > > point betwen them. > > > > > > Polished short summaries a bit: > > > > > > 1. Start with capital letter. > > > 2. s/tpm2/TPM2/g > > > > Now also in my next branch. I wait for 24h or so and if no alarms are > > rised I'll send a PR. The code changes for the most part mechanically > > move stuff, which makes me confident that I can still do a PR with > > these changes. > > Did you notice an issue reported by kbuild test robot? It looks like > asymmetric keys based on TPM also relied on old tpm_buf method. So we > need to transition them also to use new tpm_buf method. I can work on > corresponding changes required but need your help to test it. > Patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/11/312 to transition TPM asymmetric keys code. -Sumit > > > > > /Jarkko
