On 7/31/20 8:56 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
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.
Yes, you're right. Looks like I messed things up with the rebase. That
means I might have to move the elf_write() to builtin-check.c.
Thanks for pointing it out.
--
Julien Thierry