On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 02:31:47PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:48:25PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:30:26PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:27:03PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:34:36AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > > > > > - struct dentry **bios_dir; > > > > > + struct dentry *bios_dir[3]; > > > > > + unsigned int bios_dir_count; > > > > > > > > You should rather have a four entry array and use a NULL terminator. > > > > > > Why? Then everything has to compute the length before doing > > > anything. The basic ops are 'append to back' and 'pop off back' which > > > require length. > > > > One variable less to struct tpm_chip. The loop that removes the files > > simply can continue until NULL is encountered. > > We've been over this, the loop has to remove them in reverse over. > > Why are you so concerned about size of tpm_chip??
It's not the size. It's the added complexity. I'll look into revising this commit a bit in order in order to move things forward... /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
