On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 05:24:35PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 13:16, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 08:24:22AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Simplify a few expressions in this function.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
(no changes since v1)
lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c index f1154f73e05..3b1c7528e92 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c @@ -206,11 +206,11 @@ static s64 efi_mem_carve_out(struct efi_mem_list *map, (carve_desc->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT);
/* check whether we're overlapping */
if ((carve_end <= map_start) || (carve_start >= map_end))
if (carve_end <= map_start || carve_start >= map_end) return EFI_CARVE_NO_OVERLAP; /* We're overlapping with non-RAM, warn the caller if desired */
if (overlap_conventional && (map_desc->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY))
if (overlap_conventional && map_desc->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY) return EFI_CARVE_OVERLAPS_NONRAM; /* Sanitize carve_start and carve_end to lie within our bounds */As I believe was mentioned in a previous iteration, please drop this as they aren't excessive generates a compiler warning, merely for clarification and should be kept.
I did this patch because checkpatch complained and I am changing these lines.
And checkpatch is not the authority, it's guidelines. I believe the review comments are "no, these should stay". Please drop this patch.