Re: [PATCH 01/23] TPM: Add new TPMs to the tail of the list to prevent inadvertent change of dev

Use "tpm" instead of "TPM" in the short summary.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:56:56PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Add newly registered TPMs to the tail of the list, not the beginning, so that
> things that are specifying TPM_ANY_NUM don't find that the device they're
> using has inadvertently changed.  Adding a second device would break IMA, for
> instance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Huewe <[email protected]>
> cc: [email protected]

Usually I add Cc-tag before signed-off-by's (and have the first c in
upper case).

Peter's singed-off-by should be accompanied with a co-developed-by tag
if he has participated to the development of this commit.

As far as I see signed-off-by without co-developed-by makes sense in two
occasions:

* You own the subsystem tree i.e. you have to sign the changes that you
  include part of your pull request.
* You are the initial authoer of the change.  

> ---
> 
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> index 6af17002a115..cfb9089887bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> @@ -1122,7 +1122,7 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_register_hardware(struct device *dev,
>  
>  	/* Make chip available */
>  	spin_lock(&driver_lock);
> -	list_add_rcu(&chip->list, &tpm_chip_list);

I would add here a comment just as a remainder.
> +	list_add_tail_rcu(&chip->list, &tpm_chip_list);
>  	spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
>  
>  	return chip;

/Jarkko

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot