Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] tpm: Fix test for interrupts
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>, peterhuewe@gmx.de,
        jarkko@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca
Cc:     stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, jsnitsel@redhat.com, ml.linux@elloe.vision,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1619394440-30646-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <1619394440-30646-4-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <e0b34384-d286-2251-bc43-0ee3083672b3@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <b9ccf9df-2b0a-5bff-d38f-bad05cad9896@gmx.de>
Date:   Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:13:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e0b34384-d286-2251-bc43-0ee3083672b3@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


Hi,

On 26.04.21 at 16:49, Stefan Berger wrote:

>> diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h
>> index 55debe6..e9882acf 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/tpm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
>> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ struct tpm_chip {
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 struct tpm_chip_seqops bin_log_seqops;
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 struct tpm_chip_seqops ascii_log_seqops;
>> =C2=A0 -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unsigned int flags;
>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unsigned long flags;
>
>
> This doesn't seem to be necessary.
>

The bitop makros require an unsigned long, leaving it as unsigned int resu=
lts in
a compiler error:

error: passing argument 2 of =E2=80=98test_bit=E2=80=99 from incompatible =
pointer type [-Werror=3Dincompatible-pointer-types]

> The rest looks good to me. I remember that last time I had tried to acti=
vate it some laptop didn't cooperate and we ended up reverting some code, =
but maybe your changes fixed all of that now. Though you may want to 'prep=
are for unforseen consequences' :-).
>

You may be right with your concerns and I will try to find some more hardw=
are to test the patches.

Thanks for the review(s).

Regards,
Lino