On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:32:15PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/10/2016 11:39 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
quoted
+/* above flags */
+#define VTPM_FLAG_TPM2 1 /* emulator is TPM 2 */
+
+/* all supported flags */
+#define VTPM_FLAGS_ALL (VTPM_FLAG_TPM2)
+
+#define VTPM_TPM 0xa0
A better name would be VTPM_IOC_MAGIC. You should also update
Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt.
quoted
+
+#define VTPM_NEW_DEV _IOW(VTPM_TPM, 0x00, struct vtpm_new_dev)
I'd rather use VTPM_IOC_NEW_DEV.
What about the name of the structure ? vtpm_ioc_new_dev?
If I look at other subsystems like drm the common practice is either
name the ioctl as VTPM_NEW_DEV_IOCTL or VTPM_IOC_NEW_DEV and not have
suffix or postfix in the parameter struct. I would just copy that
convention here.
Stefan
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140