Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tpm: ibmvtpm: Rename tpm_process_cmd to tpm_status and define flag

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:15:14AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:

On 8/10/21 10:10 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 09:50:55PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:

quoted

On 8/10/21 1:58 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 03:21:59PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:

quoted

From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>

Rename the field tpm_processing_cmd to tpm_status in ibmvtpm_dev and set
the TPM_STATUS_BUSY flag while the vTPM is busy processing a command.


   		default:

diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.h
index 51198b137461..252f1cccdfc5 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.h
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.h

@@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ struct ibmvtpm_dev {
   	wait_queue_head_t wq;
   	u16 res_len;
   	u32 vtpm_version;
-	u8 tpm_processing_cmd;
+	u8 tpm_status;
+#define TPM_STATUS_BUSY		(1 << 0) /* vtpm is processing a command */

Declare this already in the fix, and just leave the rename here.

You mean the fix patch does not use 'true' anymore but uses the
TPM_STATUS_BUSY flag already but the name is still tpm_processing_cmd? And
literally only the renaming of this field is done in the 2nd patch?

I can fixup these patches, and use '1', instead of true. No need to send
new ones.

Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>

I applied the first. If you have only one flag that you even
document as "processing the command" in the inline comment,
it makes absolutely no sense to rename it, as the current
name perfectly documents what it exactly is.

/Jarkko