On Fri Nov 1, 2024 at 11:13 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri Nov 1, 2024 at 10:34 PM EET, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01 2024 at 12:28, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Fri Sep 13, 2024 at 11:04 PM EEST, Ross Philipson wrote: > > >> A quick note on terminology. The larger open source project itself is called > > >> TrenchBoot, which is hosted on Github (links below). The kernel feature enabling > > >> the use of Dynamic Launch technology is referred to as "Secure Launch" within > > >> the kernel code. As such the prefixes sl_/SL_ or slaunch/SLAUNCH will be seen > > >> in the code. The stub code discussed above is referred to as the SL stub. > > > > > > 1. I don't see any tags in most of the patches so don't get the rush. This > > > includes also patches for x86. Why I would care to review TPM patches > > > when there is over a dozen unreviewed and untested patches before it? > > > 2. TPM patches have been in circulation in and out of the patch set > > > for some time now with little or no improvement. > > > > > > Why the sudden buzz? I have not heard much about this since last early > > > summer. Have to spend some time recalling what this is about anyway. I > > > cannot trust that my tags make any sense before more reviewed/tested-by > > > tags before the TPM patches. > > > > If I intend to merge the patches then I surely have looked at them > > deeply. I don't have to send a reviewed-by just to apply them > > afterwards. > > > > There was enough motion on these patches and this posting is in your > > inbox for 6 weeks now without any reaction from you. > > > > The TPM changes are very much independent from the x86 specific ones, so > > why do you want x86 review tags in order to look at the ones which are > > specific to your subsystem especially as some of them seem to address > > real short comings there independent of trenchboot. > > I think we can sort them out independently as long as we find a > conclusion how to address locality change. And to be fair: there was no reaction from anyone. It is mostly x86 patch set, meaning that I was waiting for some reaction first from that side. And I did respond to that when it came. IMHO: let's get a solution for that one problem and then it should be fine as far as I'm concerned. BR, Jarkko
