[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1457477678.800.7.camel@vtpm2014.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:54:38 -0500
From: "Hon Ching(Vicky) Lo" <honclo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Peter Huewe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
Ashley Lai <ashley@...leylai.com>,
Vicky Lo <honclo2014@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vTPM: fix missing error handling for suspend operation
> > > + } else if (crq.msg == (u8) PARTNER_PARTITION_FAILED) {
> > > + dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> > > + "vtpm has terminated fatally; reboot to reinstate a trusted state.\n");
> > > + } else if (crq.msg == (u8) PARTNER_PARTITION_DEREG_CRQ) {
> > > + /* The vtpm is in the process of being reloaded by
> > > + * firmware and has de-registered CRQ. The client
> > > + * must wait for the CRQ INITIALIZATION message and
> > > + * respond and must resubmit suspend message.
> > > + */
> > > + sig =
> > > + wait_event_interruptible(ibmvtpm->wq,
> > > + crq_initialized == 1);
> > > + if (sig)
> > > + return -EINTR;
> > > +
> > > + if (suspend_again_count < 1) {
> > > + suspend_again_count++;
> > > + goto suspendagain;
> > > + }
> > > + } else
> > > + ;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> > > - dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> > > - "tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> > > + dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev, "tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> > >
> > > return rc;
> > > +
> > > +suspendagain:
> > > + rc = tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend(ibmvtpm->dev);
> > > + suspend_again_count = 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> > > + dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev, "tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> > > +
> > > + return rc;
> > > +
> >
> > Get rid of this horrible looking tail recursion thing.
> >
> > What the heck is suspend_again_count and why it can be module scope
> > variable? You could use a local variable instead if you would iterate
> > with a loop.
> >
> > /Jarkko
> >
>
> The reason for the 'goto' statement and the suspend_again_count was to
> prevent the suspend function recurse again. In the case if vtpm is in
> the process of being reloaded by firmware, we want to wait for the CRQ
> INITIALIZATION and resubmit suspend message i.e. recurse only once.
>
Never mind.. I don't really save any repetitive code by using recursion
now. I'll rework and resubmit the patch.
Thanks,
Vicky
Powered by blists - more mailing lists