On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 03:57:30PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @@ -108,11 +106,14 @@ static int vtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> >> if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, VTPM_STATUS_IDLE, duration,
> >> &priv->read_queue, true) < 0) {
> >> /* got a signal or timeout, try to cancel */
> >> - vtpm_cancel(chip);
> >> - return -ETIME;
> >> + goto cancel_vtpm;
> >> }
> >>
> >> return count;
> >> +
> >> +cancel_vtpm:
> >> + vtpm_cancel(chip);
> >> + return -ETIME;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int vtpm_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> >> --
> >> 2.14.2
> >>
> >
> > NAK
>
> Do you need any more facts to show the influence of the proposed small code reduction?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Already explained when I reviewed another patch dealing with
-ETIME.
/Jarkko
