Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 19:38:27 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks
Message-ID: <20190709163827.2u6jeflrhg44q7dy@linux.intel.com>
References: <1562458725-15999-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com>
 <586c629b6d3c718f0c1585d77fe175fe007b27b1.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <1562624644.11461.66.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190708224304.GA25838@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190708224304.GA25838@infradead.org>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:43:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:24:04PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > > {
> > > 	int rc;
> > > 
> > > 	rc = (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ?
> > >      	     tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip) :
> > >      	     tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip);
> > 
> > > 
> > > 	return rc > 0 ? -ENODEV : rc;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > This addresses the issue that Stefan also pointed out. You have to
> > > deal with the TPM error codes.
> > 
> > Hm, in the past I was told by Christoph not to use the ternary
> > operator. ?Have things changed? ?Other than removing the comment, the
> > only other difference is the return.
> 
> In the end it is a matter of personal preference, but I find the
> quote version above using the ternary horribly obsfucated.

I fully agree that the return statement is an obsfucated mess and
not a good place at all for using ternary operator.

/Jarkko