Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:22:58 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Cc:     zohar@linux.ibm.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] tpm: dynamically allocate active_banks array
Message-ID: <20181108152258.GF14072@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181106150159.1136-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
 <20181106150159.1136-2-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
 <20181108134651.GA8922@linux.intel.com>
 <de240805-d5a3-e1a8-1f26-0320d7125594@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <de240805-d5a3-e1a8-1f26-0320d7125594@huawei.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> Should I include the patch for tpm_pcr_extend() in this patch set, even
> if the set fixes the digest size issue?

Just add some note to the cover letter. Makes sense here to have a
prequel patch for that because otherwise the implementation will be
a bit messy and half-baked.

/Jarkko