[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] add tpm_xenu.ko: Xen Virtual TPM frontend driver
-----Original Message----- From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kent Yoder Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:29 AM To: Jan Beulich Cc: Fioravante, Matthew E.; jeremy@xxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mail@xxxxxxxxxx; tpmdd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] add tpm_xenu.ko: Xen Virtual TPM frontend driver On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:17:32AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 07.11.12 at 19:14, Matthew Fioravante <matthew.fioravante@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> wrote: > > On 11/07/2012 09:46 AM, Kent Yoder wrote: > >>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > >>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > >>> @@ -130,6 +130,9 @@ struct tpm_chip { > >>> > >>> struct list_head list; > >>> void (*release) (struct device *); > >>> +#if CONFIG_XEN > >>> + void *priv; > >>> +#endif > >> Can you use the chip->vendor.data pointer here instead? > >> tpm_ibmvtpm is already using that as a priv pointer. I should > >> probably change that name to make it more obvious what that's used for. > > That makes more sense. I'm guessing your data pointer didn't exist > > during the 2.6.18 kernel which is why they added their own priv pointer. > > It got introduced with 3.7-rc. > > >>> @@ -310,6 +313,18 @@ struct tpm_cmd_t { > >>> > >>> ssize_t tpm_getcap(struct device *, __be32, cap_t *, const char *); > >>> > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN > >>> +static inline void *chip_get_private(const struct tpm_chip *chip) > >>> +{ > >>> + return chip->priv; > >>> +} > >>> + > >>> +static inline void chip_set_private(struct tpm_chip *chip, void > >>> +*priv) { > >>> + chip->priv = priv; > >>> +} > >>> +#endif > >> Can you put these in tpm_vtpm.c please? One less #define. :-) > > Agreed, I'd rather not have to modify your shared tpm.h interface at all. > > Either such accessors should be defined here, for everyone to use (and > tpm_ibmvtpm.c get changed accordingly), or the Xen code should access > the field without wrappers too (for consistency). Agreed. I'll update tpm_ibmvtpm. Kent So what is the consensus, you're going to use accessors in ibmvtpm? I was just about to remove them from my side. > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |