On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Ok, this looks reasonable, but will have a minor clash with Gustavo's
> "security: mark expected switch fall-throughs and add a missing
> break".
>
> James, are you picking up Gastavo's v2 patch from Friday?
Nope.
>
> Mimi
>
> > ---
> >
> > No change
On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 12:28 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 23:16 +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> > Commit a893ea15d764 ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to
> > include/linux/tpm.h") introduced a build error when both ima and efi is
> > enabled. What happens is that both headers (ima.h
On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 23:16 +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> Commit a893ea15d764 ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to
> include/linux/tpm.h") introduced a build error when both ima and efi is
> enabled. What happens is that both headers (ima.h and efi.h) defines the
> same 'NONE' constant, and it broke
Commit a893ea15d764 ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to
include/linux/tpm.h") introduced a build error when both ima and efi is
enabled. What happens is that both headers (ima.h and efi.h) defines the
same 'NONE' constant, and it broke when they started getting included
from the same file.
In file
