[PATCH v5 12/21] tpm: move pcr extend code to tpm2-cmd.c

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:35:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 10:24:09PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jarkko Sakkinen [mailto:jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 15:02
> > > To: Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca>; Nayna Jain
> > > <nayna at linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Usyskin, Alexander
> > > <alexander.usyskin at intel.com>; Struk, Tadeusz <tadeusz.struk at intel.com>;
> > > linux-integrity at vger.kernel.org; linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org;
> > > linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; roberto.sassu at huawei.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/21] tpm: move pcr extend code to tpm2-cmd.c
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:58:25AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 01:30:26AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > > Add tpm2_pcr_extend() function to tpm2-cmd.c with signature
> > > > > > required by tpm-interface.c. It wraps the original open code
> > > implementation.
> > > > > > The original original tpm2_pcr_extend() function is renamed to
> > > > > > __tpm2_pcr_extend() and made static, it is called only from new
> > > > > > tpm2_pcr_extend().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fix warnings in __tpm2_pcr_extend()
> > > > > > tpm2-cmd.c:251:16: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
> > > > > > integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
> > > > > > tpm2-cmd.c:252:17: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
> > > > > > integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler at intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > We do not want the signature change, especially because as we are
> > > > > working on getting Roberto's changes in and also because it has
> > > > > absolutely a zero gain. Who cares if those functions take different
> > > parameters? I don't.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we do care this series tries to have a clean cut between 1.x  and 2.x
> > > specs. Please, let's finish one transformation and then move to another.
> > > > I understand that Roberto will have to rebase anyhow, if this series goes in
> > > first, if this is hard I can do it myself, it's trivial.
> > > >
> > > > Tomas
> > > 
> > > I'm happy to tune this minor stuff.
> > What minor stuff?  This patch is just okay, let's change the API in next round.
> 
> The patch is not okay because it does a completely unnecessary API
> change.

Other minor stuff was missing commas in the list of return values if I
recall...

/Jarkko