On Mon, 2022-12-12 at 00:52 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:01:57PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sat, 2022-12-10 at 02:09 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 11:06:01AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > This separates out the old tpm_buf_... handling functions from > > > > static > > > > inlines in tpm.h and makes them their own tpm-buf.c file. This > > > > is > > > > a > > > > precursor so we can add new functions for other TPM type > > > > handling > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I don't comprehend that explanation at all. > > > > > > Please, add a bit more detail why this precursory change is > > > required. > > > > It's the usual submitting-patches requirement of moving code first > > before modifying it. Since it's the recommended way of doing > > things in our process docs, I'm not sure how much more explanation > > can be given. > > It doesn not contain any reasonable argument for not continue > using inline functions. In principle nothing prevents them being inlines in tpm.h. There's quite a lot of them, so it's growing unweildy and __tpm_buf_init can't be hidden in that scenario but it could, in theory, be done. James
