Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks | From | Nayna <> | Date | Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:59:53 -0400 |
| |
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
| |