> > bit cheesy as far as I can see, so something more integrated in the
> > tpmfront/back protocol would be nice.
>
> In terms of time needed for migration there won't be a difference. Is
> supporting that .suspend really so problematic?
Can't you implement the 'exactly-once' semantics you want using some higher-level protocol?
The suspend hook clearly can't be called in the case of restarting a driver domain. Maybe you don't ever want to do this with tpm, but we do with all the other backends.
Ian
> > tpmfront/back protocol would be nice.
>
> In terms of time needed for migration there won't be a difference. Is
> supporting that .suspend really so problematic?
Can't you implement the 'exactly-once' semantics you want using some higher-level protocol?
The suspend hook clearly can't be called in the case of restarting a driver domain. Maybe you don't ever want to do this with tpm, but we do with all the other backends.
Ian