Hi Tom, On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 17:37, Tom Rini <tr...@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 <tr...@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 <s...@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
