Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen-tpmfront: Combine two condition checks into one statement in vtpm_send()

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 03:44:01PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 01:30:46PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:15:16 +0200
> > 
> > A return was performed with the same error code after two condition checks.
> > Thus use a single statement instead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c | 5 +----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c b/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c
> > index 873a5631937a..0d02743e7a87 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c
> > @@ -82,10 +82,7 @@ static int vtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> >  	u32 ordinal;
> >  	unsigned long duration;
> >  
> > -	if (offset > PAGE_SIZE)
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -
> > -	if (offset + count > PAGE_SIZE)
> > +	if (offset > PAGE_SIZE || offset + count > PAGE_SIZE)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> >  	/* Wait for completion of any existing command or cancellation */
> > -- 
> > 2.14.2
> > 
> 
> This is fine.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> /Jarkko

Anyway I NAK it because it is really a change of insignificant value.
Just adds cruft to the kernel release.

I would be fine if someone did this as part of something significant.

/Jarkko