On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:52:19PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 19:49, Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +static int get_devices(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 session,
> > > + struct tee_shm *device_uuid, u32 *shm_size)
> >
> > Missing const on device_uuid?
> >
>
> I don't think we should have a const for device_uuid here as this is
> shared memory struct pointer which is dynamically allocated and used
> to fetch device UUIDs.
Agree. Perhaps device_uuid is misnamed though (part of the reason I
misread this is that it is singular so I though it was a single UUID
travelling into the TZ).
> > > + rc = get_devices(ctx, sess_arg.session, device_shm, &shm_size);
> > > + if (rc < 0)
> > > + goto out_shm;
> > > +
> > > + device_uuid = tee_shm_get_va(device_shm, 0);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(device_uuid)) {
> > > + pr_err("tee_shm_get_va failed\n");
> > > + rc = PTR_ERR(device_uuid);
> > > + goto out_shm;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + while (idx < shm_size / sizeof(uuid_t)) {
> >
> > This is a very uncommon way to write a for loop ;-).
> >
>
> Ok, will add "num_devices" variable.
num_devices might add readability but that is not what I meant.
The most idiomatic way to write somthing that loops for every valid index
value is:
for (i=0; i < limit; i++)
You wrote it like this:
int idx=0;
/* lots of code between initializer and first use */
while (idx < limit) {
/* more code */
idx++;
}
Sure, they are equivalent but the idiomatic form is easier to read.
Daniel.
