[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-integrity
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen-tpmfront: Use common error handling code in vtpm_send()
From:       Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen () linux ! intel ! com>
Date:       2017-10-24 13:56:44
Message-ID: 20171024135622.uswu3apuj23njbna () linux ! intel ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 03:57:30PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @@ -108,11 +106,14 @@ static int vtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> >>  	if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, VTPM_STATUS_IDLE, duration,
> >>  			&priv->read_queue, true) < 0) {
> >>  		/* got a signal or timeout, try to cancel */
> >> -		vtpm_cancel(chip);
> >> -		return -ETIME;
> >> +		goto cancel_vtpm;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	return count;
> >> +
> >> +cancel_vtpm:
> >> +	vtpm_cancel(chip);
> >> +	return -ETIME;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  static int vtpm_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> >> -- 
> >> 2.14.2
> >>
> > 
> > NAK
> 
> Do you need any more facts to show the influence of the proposed small code reduction?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

Already explained when I reviewed another patch dealing with
-ETIME.

/Jarkko




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]