[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7f7a7196-8b28-cd55-0685-799766bb6d4c@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:44:16 +0100
From: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] objtool: Move orc outside of check
On 7/30/20 3:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:29:20PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/20 2:22 PM, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:40:42PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/30/20 10:57 AM, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41:41AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>>>> + if (file->elf->changed)
>>>>>> + return elf_write(file->elf);
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can do without that else :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did wonder and was not 100% confident about it, but the orc gen will
>>>> always change the file, correct?
>>>
>>> Not if it already has orc, iirc.
>>>
>>> But what I was trying to say is that:
>>>
>>> if (file->elf->changed)
>>> return elf_write(file->elf)
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> is identical code and, IMO, easier to read.
>>>
>>
>> Much easier yes, I'll change it.
>
> But I think file->elf->changed can be assumed at this point anyway, so
> it could just be an unconditional
>
> return elf_write(file->elf);
>
I'll triple check whether that's the case and remove the if if possible.
--
Julien Thierry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists