On Tue Jun 6, 2023 at 5:09 AM EEST, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 14:31 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue May 2, 2023 at 5:09 PM EEST, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4/3/23 17:39, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Introducing encryption sessions changes where the return > > > > parameters > > > > s/Introducing/Introduce/ > > > > Commit messages should always be in the imperative form. > > "Introducing" in this sentence is a gerund (verb used as a noun); it > can't be changed to an imperative because it's not being used as a > direct verb in the sentence (that honour goes to "changes", which also > can't be made imperative because the gerund is the subject). I can > reword it like this if you want the sentence to begin with an > imperative (and get rid of the gerund before Linus bites my head off > again for using obscure grammatical constructions): > > "Replace all instances of &buf.data[TPM_HEADER_SIZE] with a new > function tpm_buf_parameters() because encryption sessions change > where the return parameters are located in the buffer since if a > return session is present they're 4 bytes beyond the header with those > 4 bytes giving the parameter length. If there is no return session, > then they're in the usual place immediately after the header." I'm planning to write a small (RFC) patch set just for the tpm_buf portion because it is the part that does not work for me. What builds on top of that looks decent, or will converge to decent. I have some ideas that have building up in my head so I'll just dump that as source code and see if that works for you (or not). BR, Jarkko
