On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:38:13PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:08:38AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > This is no good at this point in the series - we need the ENODEV > > > detection in tpm_chip_register() from the 'Fix handle of missing event > > > log' moved into this patch, because it now returns ENODEV due to > > > sercurityfs > > > > Sure it would be cleaner but not really necessary. Do you really think > > this is mandatory? No matter how I reorder patches this will require > > time and effort to fix various merge conflicts because of the replacemnt > > of event log. After that I have to test everything. > > Well, once you started editing patches to fix them you should make > them fully correct so bisection works. > > If you applied the patch I gave you on top of the tree then I would > have said to leave it...
I agree with you on this. I adjusted it to be like that now. Is it good now? /Jarkko
