On Mon Sep 4, 2023 at 9:00 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon Aug 28, 2023 at 3:35 AM EEST, Mario Limonciello wrote:
On 8/27/2023 13:12, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Wed Aug 23, 2023 at 9:58 PM EEST, Mario Limonciello wrote:
On 8/23/2023 12:40, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Wed Aug 23, 2023 at 11:23 AM EEST, Paul Menzel wrote:
Dear Jarkko,
Thank you for your patch.
Am 23.08.23 um 01:15 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen: > The vendor check introduced by commit 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for > all AMD fTPMs") doesn't work properly on a number of Intel fTPMs. On the > reported systems the TPM doesn't reply at bootup and returns back the > command code. This makes the TPM fail probe. > > Since only Microsoft Pluton is the only known combination of AMD CPU and > fTPM from other vendor, disable hwrng otherwise. In order to make sysadmin > aware of this, print also info message to the klog. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Fixes: 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs") > Reported-by: Todd Brandt todd.e.brandt@intel.com > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217804 > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko@kernel.org
Mario’s patch also had the three reporters below listed:
Reported-by: Patrick Steinhardt ps@pks.im Reported-by: Ronan Pigott ronan@rjp.ie Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo rjgolo@gmail.com
The problem here is that checkpatch throws three warnings:
WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report #19: Reported-by: Patrick Steinhardt ps@pks.im Reported-by: Ronan Pigott ronan@rjp.ie
WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report #20: Reported-by: Ronan Pigott ronan@rjp.ie Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo rjgolo@gmail.com
WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report #21: Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo rjgolo@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko@kernel.org
FWIW I observed the same checkpatch warning when I submitted my version of the patch. I figured it's better to ignore the warning and attribute everyone who reported the issue affected them.
OK so:
- checkpatch.pl is part of the kernel process.
- Bugzilla is not part of the kernel process.
Why emphasis on 1?
BR, Jarkko
The reason I submitted it this way is because of this quote from the documentation [1].
"Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone."
I wanted the patch to capture and attribute all those that reported it not just the "first one". Like I said previously, it's better to have a collection of people to ping to notify if something needs to be reverted.
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#style...
Please denote also that kernel bugzilla is not mentioned in the page that you put as a reference, and only reporter in the LKML has been Todd.
Also the bugzilla is ambiguous because in this thread I get a picture that any possible commenter is a reporter, and at the same time bugzilla has a *specific field* for a reporter.
How do the comments and the field for the reporter relate, and how they should be interpreted?
BR, Jarkko