> On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 21:15 +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > Right now if I really put head into this I can understand the logic > > > but it is a complete mess. > > > > I think what is the mess is that we have a recursive call to > > tpm_transmit topped with retries. All other mess is just the result of that. > > > > > I will forgot the dependencies between flags within few weeks. > > > > Hope the reasons are well documented both in code and the commit > > message, if not let's address that. We really cannot depend on one's > memory. > > It's not like I'm not striving for simplest possible code. > > > > > A fixed requirement (so that you know) is that they must be > > > independent. > > > > The flags (hope this what you referring here to) are not independent > > and weren't before, (RAW cannot be called alone as you will have > > double locking) putting them under one name just should make it clear. > > I beg you to go over the code one more time, don't get stuck with > > flags names, maybe you even discover some real issue. > > > > Thanks > > Tomas > > You should then find a solution where you can remove > TPM_TRANSMIT_RAW completely and make it as a separate commit, not > part of the bug fix. > This is not in a shape that I would dare to put this in a pull request. Very well, I will remove the NESTED flag. though I have feeling you are shooting from the hip you didn't really read the code. Please there anyone who can review the code? Tomas
