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 <[email protected]>
[...]
> > +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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
