Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:43:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:24:04PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > > {
> > > 	int rc;
> > > 
> > > 	rc = (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ?
> > >      	     tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip) :
> > >      	     tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip);
> > 
> > > 
> > > 	return rc > 0 ? -ENODEV : rc;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > This addresses the issue that Stefan also pointed out. You have to
> > > deal with the TPM error codes.
> > 
> > Hm, in the past I was told by Christoph not to use the ternary
> > operator.  Have things changed?  Other than removing the comment, the
> > only other difference is the return.
> 
> In the end it is a matter of personal preference, but I find the
> quote version above using the ternary horribly obsfucated.

I fully agree that the return statement is an obsfucated mess and
not a good place at all for using ternary operator.

/Jarkko