On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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.
So it's a debate whether saving a single check with more convoluted branching is a better or worse idea. I don't know. Thus, I cannot accept this patch. BR, Jarkko
