[PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks
nayna at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Jul 12 03:59:53 AEST 2019
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) :
>>>> 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,
Thanks & Regards,
More information about the Linuxppc-dev