On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 15:09, Daniel Thompson daniel.thompson@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:52:19PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 19:49, Daniel Thompson daniel.thompson@linaro.org wrote:
+static int get_devices(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 session,
struct tee_shm *device_uuid, u32 *shm_size)Missing const on device_uuid?
I don't think we should have a const for device_uuid here as this is shared memory struct pointer which is dynamically allocated and used to fetch device UUIDs.
Agree. Perhaps device_uuid is misnamed though (part of the reason I misread this is that it is singular so I though it was a single UUID travelling into the TZ).
Will rename it to device_shm instead.
rc = get_devices(ctx, sess_arg.session, device_shm, &shm_size);if (rc < 0)goto out_shm;device_uuid = tee_shm_get_va(device_shm, 0);if (IS_ERR(device_uuid)) {pr_err("tee_shm_get_va failed\n");rc = PTR_ERR(device_uuid);goto out_shm;}while (idx < shm_size / sizeof(uuid_t)) {This is a very uncommon way to write a for loop ;-).
Ok, will add "num_devices" variable.
num_devices might add readability but that is not what I meant.
The most idiomatic way to write somthing that loops for every valid index value is:
for (i=0; i < limit; i++)You wrote it like this:
int idx=0; /* lots of code between initializer and first use */ while (idx < limit) { /* more code */ idx++; }Sure, they are equivalent but the idiomatic form is easier to read.
Oh okay, will use "for" loop instead.
-Sumit
Daniel.