From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: ioctl API for vTPM driver Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:11:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20160306121103.GA23480@intel.com> References: <20160306120537.GA22702@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160306120537.GA22702-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tpmdd-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Stefan Berger Cc: tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:05:37PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Hi > > Some follow-up question that have popped up while I've started to > write a test program for this feature mainly about ioctl API. It's > better to be extremly cautious here because we will be stuck with this > ioctl forever. > > 1. Why the ioctl name is VTPM_NEW_DEV but the struct name is > vtpm_new_pair? It would be better if they both were either > VTPM_NEW_DEV and vtpm_new_dev or alternatively VTPM_NEW_PAIR > and vtpm_new_pair. > 2. Is 'pair' or 'tuple' a better term? > 3. Where is the documentation for the ioctl? I don't think I can > merge this to my next branch before it exists. > 4. I have forgotten why the major and minor numbers were returned. > My guess is that they were returned so that a container could > replicate the device? This is one reason why documentation is > mandatory. 5. Is there any particular reason why 'tpm_dev_num' couldn't simply be 'dev_num'? /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------