Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks

[Nayna]

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. ÂHave things changed? ÂOther 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,
ÂÂÂÂ - Nayna