qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL v1 1/1] hw/tpm: fix usage of bool in tpm-tis.c


From: Stefan Berger
Subject: Re: [PULL v1 1/1] hw/tpm: fix usage of bool in tpm-tis.c
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 16:34:05 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 5/8/20 4:04 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
Clean up wrong usage of FALSE and TRUE in places that use "bool" from stdbool.h.

FALSE and TRUE (with capital letters) are the constants defined by glib for
being used with the "gboolean" type of glib. But some parts of the code also use
TRUE and FALSE for variables that are declared as "bool" (the type from 
<stdbool.h>).

Scratch this one. Wrong author of patch. Need to fix attribution.



Signed-off-by: Jafar Abdi <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Berger <address@hidden>
---
  hw/tpm/tpm_tis_common.c | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/tpm/tpm_tis_common.c b/hw/tpm/tpm_tis_common.c
index 9ce64d4836..5cd4006d2f 100644
--- a/hw/tpm/tpm_tis_common.c
+++ b/hw/tpm/tpm_tis_common.c
@@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ static void tpm_tis_mmio_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
              while ((TPM_TIS_IS_VALID_LOCTY(s->active_locty) &&
                      locty > s->active_locty) ||
                      !TPM_TIS_IS_VALID_LOCTY(s->active_locty)) {
-                bool higher_seize = FALSE;
+                bool higher_seize = false;
/* already a pending SEIZE ? */
                  if ((s->loc[locty].access & TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE)) {
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static void tpm_tis_mmio_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
                  /* check for ongoing seize by a higher locality */
                  for (l = locty + 1; l < TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES; l++) {
                      if ((s->loc[l].access & TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE)) {
-                        higher_seize = TRUE;
+                        higher_seize = false;
                          break;
                      }
                  }





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]