[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks
Hi Jarkko,

On 07/09/2019 12:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:43:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:24:04PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc;
>>>> rc = (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ?
>>>> tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip) :
>>>> tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip);
>>>> return rc > 0 ? -ENODEV : rc;
>>>> }
>>>> This addresses the issue that Stefan also pointed out. You have to
>>>> deal with the TPM error codes.
>>> Hm, in the past I was told by Christoph not to use the ternary
>>> operator.  Have things changed?  Other than removing the comment, the
>>> only other difference is the return.
>> In the end it is a matter of personal preference, but I find the
>> quote version above using the ternary horribly obsfucated.
> I fully agree that the return statement is an obsfucated mess and
> not a good place at all for using ternary operator.

I have posted the v3 version that includes the suggested corrections by
you and Stefan. Sorry for some delay.

Michal and Sachin, I would appreciate if you can test the v3 version,
please ?

Thanks & Regards,
     - Nayna

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-11 20:00    [W:0.040 / U:24.476 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site