[PATCH v4 03/25] efi_loader: Drop extra brackets in efi_mem_carve_out()

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 17:37, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> 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 at 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 at 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.

Agreed.

> I believe the
> review comments are "no, these should stay". Please drop this patch.

Just so I can figure out what to do here, are you saying:
- merge this patch in with the one that produces a checkpatch warning
(i.e. remove brackets so resolve warning), or
- drop this patch and ignore the checkpatch warning in the result

I don't really mind about this, obviously. But as I suspect this
series is not going to be applied to your tree anyway, I'll await
events.

Regards,
Simon