Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1568994809.3645.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/12] tpm-buf: move from static inlines to real
 functions
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:53:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20190920140642.GB9578@linux.intel.com>
References: <1568031408.6613.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <1568031476.6613.30.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <20190920140459.GA9578@linux.intel.com>
         <20190920140642.GB9578@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 17:06 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:06:15PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 01:17:56PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > This separates out the old tpm_buf_... handling functions from
> > > static
> > > inlines in tpm.h and makes them their own tpm-buf.c file.  This
> > > is a
> > > precursor so we can add new functions for other TPM type handling
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership
> > > .com>
> > 
> > What about TPM_BUF_2B that gets added in this commit?
> 
> Probably just a glitch in rebasing/squashing?

Well a glitch in splitting one patch into three, yes.  I'll fix it up.

James