On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:17:11AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:32 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:07:08PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > From: James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com>
> [...]
> > > +static int tpm2_session_add(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 handle)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tpm_space *space = &chip->work_space;
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(space->session_tbl); i++)
> > > + if (space->session_tbl[i] == 0)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(space->session_tbl)) {
> > > + dev_err(&chip->dev, "out of session slots\n");
> >
> > This really should be dev_dbg.
>
> This was my reply to the comment the last time:
>
> I can do that, but I think this should be higher than debug. If
> this trips, something an application was doing will fail with a non
> TPM error and someone may wish to investigate why. Having a kernel
> message would help with that (but they won't see it if it's debug).
>
> I'm also leaning towards the idea that we should actually have one
> more _tbl slot than we know the TPM does, so that if someone goes
> over it's the TPM that gives them a real TPM out of memory error
> rather than the space code returning -ENOMEM.
>
> If you agree, I think it should be four for both sessions_tbl and
> context_tbl.
>
> So I really don't think it should be debug. Could we compromise on
> dev_info?
>
> James
Oops, I'm sorry about that. I use the release chaos as an excuse :-)
I would lower it to dev_warn().
/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
