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, 31 Jan 2019 18:07:13 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm: don't return bool from update_timeouts
Message-ID: <20190131160713.GD5629@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190130220659.10102-1-jsnitsel@redhat.com>
 <20190131160645.GC5629@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190131160645.GC5629@linux.intel.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, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:06:45PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 03:06:58PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > Set tpm_chip->timeouts_adjusted directly in the update_timeouts
> > code instead of returning bool. In case of tpm read failing
> > print warning that the read failed and continue on.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> 
> Your signed-off-by should be before my reviewed-by (no need to
> resend).

... and linux-security-module is missing (need to resend).

/Jarkko