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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190212100825.9113-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org> <CAHp75Vd8yi0u7S6oA=Vr7E9ptYdvBvXBJn=fG2kM-=vS-7oOQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd8yi0u7S6oA=Vr7E9ptYdvBvXBJn=fG2kM-=vS-7oOQg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:23:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcPeKDLOB7vKeSG9+UfsYnPfTPy_omuTgJSUgKzC0caNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ima: fix build error redeclaration of enumerator
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:21 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:15 PM Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Commit a893ea15d764 ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to
> > include/linux/tpm.h") introduced a build error when both ima and efi is
> > enabled. What happens is that both headers (ima.h and efi.h) defines the
> > same 'NONE' constant, and it broke when they started getting included
> > from the same file.
>
> > We only need one of the two patches applied.
>
> I would argue that we need two patches applied. Namespace is a hidden
> issue in the code.
>
> This patch looks good to me, FWIW,
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>

Oh, did you change ABI? So, I have to say that enum changes are okay,
but ABI, if any, are not.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko