On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > 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, pet...@infradead.org wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:40:42PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7/30/20 10:57 AM, pet...@infradead.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.
I think it is the case. And even if not, it would only cause a pointless call to elf_update() in the end and that should not do any harm anyway if I am not mistaken. However, I think there is a problem with the rebase on top of the current code. The patch moves elf_write() call to orc_gen.c which was ok before Peterz introduced elf_write_insn() et al. We need to keep elf_write() in check.c for this case too. Miroslav
