From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE72C43610 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4B621479 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:08:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AA4B621479 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725900AbeKUJjm (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 04:39:42 -0500 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:30315 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725889AbeKUJjl (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 04:39:41 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Nov 2018 15:08:04 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,258,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="87466627" Received: from drhumphr-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.249.254.165]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2018 15:08:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:07:59 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Tadeusz Struk Cc: jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] tpm: add support for partial reads Message-ID: <20181120230759.GF8391@linux.intel.com> References: <154265371562.23494.10113870855345906523.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com> <20181120124810.GB8813@linux.intel.com> <77b031b2-7fa2-f057-1e6a-70f0427ec6c4@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <77b031b2-7fa2-f057-1e6a-70f0427ec6c4@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:36:14AM -0800, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > On 11/20/18 4:48 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> + /* Holds the resul of the last successful call to tpm_transmit() */ > > This comment is cruft. > > Do you want me to remove it? This is the comment you proposed. As I explained before it made sense before you made the remark that it can only get positive values i.e. the length. > > data_pending would be now perfectly fine name now that we concluded > > that the original length is not needed to be stored. Better than this > > as once you decrease it the variable name and contents mismatch. > > > > Can we finally agree on something? We have changed three times already. > response_length is exactly what it is and data_pending is a bit vague. You are correct in this one. If I remember right, I finally proposed 'response_pending' because 'data_pending' is really vague. For me 'response_length' is just fine too. If you see problem in my review comment or inconsistency or whatever, please just state it. I will listen. When you multitask between patch reviews etc. forgetting stuff is not unheard. And seriously, 5th iteration is not alot. User space facing changes need alot of consideration and as uncluttered code change as possible. /Jarkko