On 11/17/18 11:48 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> + if (priv->transmit_result || priv->partial_data) {
>> + if (*off == 0)
>> + priv->partial_data = priv->transmit_result;
>> +
>> + ret_size = min_t(ssize_t, size, priv->partial_data);
>> + if (ret_size <= 0) {
> When ret_size < 0? Shouldn't this be just "if (!ret_size)"?
What we want to check here is if ret_size is positive, which is a valid
value, or if it is negative or zero, which is an invalid value, so in
this case (!ret_size) will not work.
>
>> /* Holds the resul of the last successful call to tpm_transmit() */
>> size_t transmit_result;
>> + /* Holds the count how much of the response is still unread */
>> + size_t partial_data;
> I'm otherwise happy how this look like but why call it partial_data.
> You cannot really tell from the name anything about its contents as
> data is very abstract term.
so I will rename these two to response_length and response_length_rem,
how does this sound?
> BTW, why you need the new variable anyway and not just decrease the
> variable where the length is original stored?
We need to have two variables, otherwise how do we tell if some part of
response was consumed to allow sending a new command?
The transmit_result is used for that. If it is zero then one can transmit
a new command even if the whole response is not consumed. The new variable
tracks how much of the response is still to be read.
Thanks,
--
Tadeusz
