Hi Jarkko,
On 07/09/2019 12:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:43:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:24:04PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
{
int rc;
rc = (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ?
tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip) :
tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip);
return rc > 0 ? -ENODEV : rc;
}
This addresses the issue that Stefan also pointed out. You have to
deal with the TPM error codes.
Hm, in the past I was told by Christoph not to use the ternary
operator. Have things changed? Other than removing the comment, the
only other difference is the return.
In the end it is a matter of personal preference, but I find the
quote version above using the ternary horribly obsfucated.
I fully agree that the return statement is an obsfucated mess and
not a good place at all for using ternary operator.
I have posted the v3 version that includes the suggested corrections by
you and Stefan. Sorry for some delay.
Michal and Sachin, I would appreciate if you can test the v3 version,
please ?
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
