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;
Message-ID: <b688e845ccbe011c54b10043fbc3c0de8f0befc2.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] fTPM: firmware TPM running in TEE
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc:     peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@microsoft.com,
        thiruan@microsoft.com, bryankel@microsoft.com,
        tee-dev@lists.linaro.org, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org,
        sumit.garg@linaro.org, rdunlap@infradead.org
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:17:29 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20190626235653.GL7898@sasha-vm>
References: <20190625201341.15865-1-sashal@kernel.org>
         <20190625201341.15865-2-sashal@kernel.org>
         <673dd30d03e8ed9825bb46ef21b2efef015f6f2a.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <20190626235653.GL7898@sasha-vm>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 19:56 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > You've used so much on this so shouldn't this have that somewhat new
> > co-developed-by tag? I'm also wondering can this work at all
> 
> Honestly, I've just been massaging this patch more than "authoring" it.
> If you feel strongly about it feel free to add a Co-authored patch with
> my name, but in my mind this is just Thiru's work.

This is just my subjective view but writing code is easier than making
it work in the mainline in 99% of cases. If this patch was doing
something revolutional, lets say a new outstanding scheduling algorithm,
then I would think otherwise. It is not. You without question deserve
both credit and also the blame (if this breaks everything) :-)

> > process-wise if the original author of the patch is also the only tester
> > of the patch?
> 
> There's not much we can do about this... Linaro folks have tested this
> without the fTPM firmware, so at the very least it won't explode for
> everyone. If for some reason non-microsoft folks see issues then we can
> submit patches on top to fix this, we're not just throwing this at you
> and running away.

So why any of those Linaro folks can't do it? I can add after tested-by
tag parentheses something explaining that context of testing. It is
reasonable given the circumstances.

I can also give an explanation in my next PR along the lines what you
are saying. This would definitely work for me.

/Jarkko