From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB11C606D1 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CD3C216C4 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:26:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6CD3C216C4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45jKmT55y4zDqQR for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:26:17 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=zohar@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45jKkN0wd5zDqNF for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:24:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x68MM44X029957 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 18:24:23 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tmcm93ub2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 18:24:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 23:24:21 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 8 Jul 2019 23:24:18 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x68MOGwh62586898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:24:17 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF966A4055; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:24:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5545FA4051; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:24:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.110.58]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:24:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks From: Mimi Zohar To: Jarkko Sakkinen , Nayna Jain , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 18:24:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <586c629b6d3c718f0c1585d77fe175fe007b27b1.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1562458725-15999-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <586c629b6d3c718f0c1585d77fe175fe007b27b1.camel@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19070822-0020-0000-0000-000003516D0B X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19070822-0021-0000-0000-000021A5192F Message-Id: <1562624644.11461.66.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-08_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907080276 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sachin Sant , George Wilson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Jason Gunthorpe , Peter Huewe , Michal Suchanek Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Hi Jarkko, On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 18:11 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, 2019-07-06 at 20:18 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > +/* > > + * tpm_get_pcr_allocation() - initialize the chip allocated banks for PCRs > > + * @chip: TPM chip to use. > > + */ > > +static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip) > > +{ > > + int rc; > > + > > + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) > > + rc = tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip); > > + else > > + rc = tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip); > > + > > + return rc; > > +} > > It is just a trivial static function, which means that kdoc comment is > not required and neither it is useful. Please remove that. I would > rewrite the function like: > > 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. Mimi