On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 08:58:28AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> On 3/25/19 7:09 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > It is still missing the comment I asked to add. Otherwise, it is good.
> >
>
> Sorry, I didn't see your email with the suggestion earlier.
> To be honest I'm not sure if th
Hi Jarkko,
On 3/25/19 7:09 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> It is still missing the comment I asked to add. Otherwise, it is good.
>
Sorry, I didn't see your email with the suggestion earlier.
To be honest I'm not sure if this comment adds much value, or if it is
even correct. The poll doesn't "succe
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:59:17PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:38:58AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> > The poll condition should only check response_length,
> > because reads should only be issued if there is data to read.
> > The response_read flag only prevents doub
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:38:58AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> The poll condition should only check response_length,
> because reads should only be issued if there is data to read.
> The response_read flag only prevents double writes.
> The problem was that the write set the response_read to fals
The poll condition should only check response_length,
because reads should only be issued if there is data to read.
The response_read flag only prevents double writes.
The problem was that the write set the response_read to false,
enqued a tpm job, and returned. Then application called poll
which c
5 matches
Mail list logo