Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:43:04 -0700 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks |
| |
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.
| |