Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/4] stubdom: Change vTPM shared page ABI

[Matthew Fioravante <matthew.fioravante@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok why don't we go with backend/vtpm2. That seems to be the less 
intrusive approach.
On 12/10/2012 04:58 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 21:25 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > +   snprintf(path, 512, "backend/vtpm/%u/%u/feature-protocol-v2", (unsigned int) 
> > > > tpmif->domid, tpmif->handle);
> > > > +   if ((err = xenbus_write(XBT_NIL, path, "1")))
> > > > +   {
> > > > +      /* if we got an error here we should carefully remove the interface and 
> > > > then return */
> > > > +      TPMBACK_ERR("Unable to write feature-protocol-v2 node: %s\n", err);
> > > > +      free(err);
> > > > +      remove_tpmif(tpmif);
> > > > +      goto error_post_irq;
> > > > +   }
> > > > +
> > > My preference is still to do away with the versioning stuff since
> > > tpm is just getting released.
> It is present in the 2.6.18-xen tree and has made its way into distros,
> at least SLES11.
>
> >   Its not even in linux yet so there is
> > > no confusion. We can even merge the linux patches together and
> > > resubmit as one if thats preferrable. Konrad, Ian, your final votes
> > > on that?
> > I am up for just removing the versioning stuff - and if one really
> > wants to be fool-proof - rename the 'backend/vtpm' to 'backend/vtpm2'
> > Perhaps?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel