Hi Jason,
On 6 November 2017 at 07:57, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
>> 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... :)
>
>> 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
From 1583281913898978111@xxx Mon Nov 06 02:28:16 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582805030856907824
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread