From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>
Cc: jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] tpm: add support for partial reads
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:07:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181120230759.GF8391@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <77b031b2-7fa2-f057-1e6a-70f0427ec6c4@intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:36:14AM -0800, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> On 11/20/18 4:48 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> + /* Holds the resul of the last successful call to tpm_transmit() */
> > This comment is cruft.
>
> Do you want me to remove it? This is the comment you proposed.
As I explained before it made sense before you made the remark that
it can only get positive values i.e. the length.
> > data_pending would be now perfectly fine name now that we concluded
> > that the original length is not needed to be stored. Better than this
> > as once you decrease it the variable name and contents mismatch.
> >
>
> Can we finally agree on something? We have changed three times already.
> response_length is exactly what it is and data_pending is a bit vague.
You are correct in this one. If I remember right, I finally proposed
'response_pending' because 'data_pending' is really vague. For me
'response_length' is just fine too.
If you see problem in my review comment or inconsistency or whatever,
please just state it. I will listen. When you multitask between patch
reviews etc. forgetting stuff is not unheard.
And seriously, 5th iteration is not alot. User space facing changes
need alot of consideration and as uncluttered code change as possible.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-20 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-19 18:55 [PATCH v5] tpm: add support for partial reads Tadeusz Struk
2018-11-20 12:48 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-20 18:30 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-11-20 23:09 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-20 18:36 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-11-20 23:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2018-11-20 23:13 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-11-21 6:45 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181120230759.GF8391@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tadeusz.struk@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).