[PATCH 4/6] efi_memory: nitpick removal loop

[Randolph Sapp]

On Thu Apr 2, 2026 at 4:04 AM CDT, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> I don't mind merging this, but why is the current code flawed?
>
> Looking at the function even if prevmem contains a previous valid
> entry the check will fail
>
> if ((desc_get_end(cur) == prev->physical_start) &&
>     (prev->type == cur->type) &&
>     (prev->attribute == cur->attribute)) {
>
> and re-assign prevmem.
>
> So please adjust the commit message if you want this merged.
>
> Thanks
> /Ilias

Ah, not really that it is "flawed" right now, but more so that we should never
even have to think about that occurrence, because at best it's an unnecessary
compare. Why waste time trying to defend or attack a line of code that simply
shouldn't exist?

> On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 at 03:14, <rs at ti.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Randolph Sapp <rs at ti.com>
>>
>> I don't even want to think about the possibility of this pointer
>> containing a reference to something from a previous iteration.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Randolph Sapp <rs at ti.com>
>> ---
>>  lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
>> index b77c2f980cc..882366a9f8a 100644
>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
>> @@ -129,13 +129,13 @@ static uint64_t desc_get_end(struct efi_mem_desc *desc)
>>  static void efi_mem_sort(void)
>>  {
>>         struct efi_mem_list *lmem;
>> -       struct efi_mem_list *prevmem = NULL;
>>         bool merge_again = true;
>>
>>         list_sort(NULL, &efi_mem, efi_mem_cmp);
>>
>>         /* Now merge entries that can be merged */
>>         while (merge_again) {
>> +               struct efi_mem_list *prevmem = NULL;
>>                 merge_again = false;
>>                 list_for_each_entry(lmem, &efi_mem, link) {
>>                         struct efi_mem_desc *prev;
>> --
>> 2.53.0
>>