Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210614201620.30451-1-richard@nod.at> <20210614201620.30451-2-richard@nod.at>
 <CAFLxGvyyybqsgXOQ2f2BmpTCnC=7UdWhwnCpGfZMxYuK-AQ-_w@mail.gmail.com> <20210625122848.GA26048@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20210625122848.GA26048@gondor.apana.org.au>
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:12:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvyFy-BWjLF5z2=TaQ+MPEh+Djj3-PSAMArMoquekLWgBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: mxs-dcp: Add support for hardware provided keys
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
        David Gstir <david@sigma-star.at>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Herbert,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:29 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > This patch was judged as not applicable in your patchwork.
> > Is something missing? How can we proceed?
>
> I'm happy to take this patch.  I marked it as not applicable
> mainly because the other two patches didn't have acks and I'm
> not sure if they were meant for the crypto tree or not.

Maybe we have a chicken/egg situation and integrity folks wait for you. ;-)

> Would you like me to take just the first patch?

IMHO all three patches should go through the integrity tree.
Given that you're fine with the first patch, can you please ack it?

-- 
Thanks,
//richard