On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 10:05:00PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote: > On 11. Dec 2025, at 21:15, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 10:03:56PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 04:48:08PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote: > >>> On 10. Dec 2025, at 16:32, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 02:00:35PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote: > >>>>> Immediately break out of both loops when 'ret != SGX_UNMASKED_EVENT' > >>>>> instead of checking for the same condition again in the outer loop. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <[email protected]> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> I don't think moving code around is very useful. > >>> > >>> The patch doesn't actually move any code around, but it removes up to 50 > >>> (SGX_EINIT_SLEEP_COUNT) duplicate and therefore unnecessary if checks in > >>> the outer for loop. > >> > >> Temporary change for generating disassembly: > >> [...] > > > > It pretty much does what I said i.e., shuffles a new location for a code > > block. > > GCC emits a much larger diff; however, discussing the patch based solely > on the disassembled code probably isn't very meaningful.
It does close the "does nothing useful" claim. It really does nothing useful. > > Thanks, > Thorsten > > BR, Jarkko
