On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 07:05:19PM -0800, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > > 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. Please explain a scenario where "!ret_size" would no work given that both size and partial_data have always positive value? > >> /* 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? Yes, assuming that there would be a hard requirement to even have two variables in the first place. > > 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? I don't understand. In order to maintain backwards compatibility you can send a new command at any time. > 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. AFAIK you only need to track the latter, not both. /Jarkko
