On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:53PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h index
> > > bcdd3790e94d..06639fb6ab85 100644
> > > +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
> > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct tpm_class_ops {
> > > bool (*update_timeouts)(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > unsigned long *timeout_cap);
> > > int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > - void (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > + int (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> >
> > This seems wrong.. What is the core code supposed to do if relinquish fails?
>
> Not much just propage the error to the caller and leave the policy
> decision to it.
Your patch set must either cover this or keep it as void.
A better idea is to print an error to klog.
/Jarkko
