On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 4:11 PM Peter Krempa <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 10:26:25 +0200, Peter Krempa via Devel wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 17:48:17 +0530, Srihari Parimi via Devel wrote:
> > > Parses vtpm.present from VMX files and converts to libvirt TPM
> > > device with CRB model and emulator backend. VMware vTPM uses
> > > TPM 2.0 as specified in the document below
> > >
> > >
> https://techdocs.broadcom.com/us/en/vmware-cis/vsphere/vsphere/8-0/vsphere-security/securing-virtual-machines-with-virtual-trusted-platform-module/vtpm-overview.html
> > >
> > > implement support for formatting TPM devices in virVMXFormatConfig
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Srihari Parimi <[email protected]>
> > > ---
>
> [..]
>
> > I also don't quite understand why the validation is split partly between
> > virVMXFormatConfig and virVMXFormatTPM. E.g. if you have most of checks
> > in virVMXFormatConfig adding the last check and the formatting wouldn't
> > make it much worse. Same way you could put all the checks into
> > virVMXFormatTPM instead.
> >
> > With the coding style fixed and all validation moved into
> > virVMXFormatTPM:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <[email protected]>
>
> I've addressed what I've pointed out (although I moved all checks into
> virVMXFormatConfig and pushed the patch.
>
> I completed and tested the changes and was about to push them! Thanks for
the same. My approach was to remove the virVMXFormatTPM() because all
checks relate to the platform, and a single device check for TPM seemed
unnecessary to keep as a separate function. Thanks again since you made the
change.

Reply via email to